BX 

1755 
.837 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

©lap — &mm¥ 

Shelf..:-. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



American Catholics 



AND THE 



ROMAN QUESTION 



MoNsiGNOR JOSEPH SCHKOEDER,D.D.,Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY 
OF AMERICA 



Quam malae famae est, qui derelinquit patrem. 

—Ecclus. iiL 18. 

The whole Catholic woi-M, very jealous of the independ- 
ence of its head, will never rest until justice has been, 
done to his most rio;hteou3 demands. (Leo XIII., Latter 
to Cardinal Rampolla, June 15, 1SS7.) 



jSTew Yoek, Cincinkati, Chicago ^ 

BENZIGER BROTHERS 

Pnntcrs to the ffoly Apostolic See 
1892 



The Lii>K ry 
OF Congress 



WASHINGTON 




EmaJtimatttr 

Michael Augustine 

Archbishop of New York 

New York, March 28, 1892 



Copyright, 1892, by Benziger Brothers 



To MY Dear Friend 



RIGHT REVEREND SEBASTIAN G. MESSMER, D.D., D.C.L. 



Bishop of Green Bay 



PEEFACE 



The following pages are an expansion of an 
article publisliecl bj me on the same subject in the 
American Catholic Quarterly Bevieio, January 1892. 
Certain qualified judges, whose desire was for me a 
command, haying urged me to publish it separately, 
I felt it my duty to somewhat enlarge its scope and 
reinforce its argument. It is unnecessary to say 
that I have by no means either the intention or the 
pretension of exhausting such a subject in so few 
pages. I have proposed to myself primarily to 
show clearly and frankly the Catholic point of view 
from which the Roman question should be regarded, 
indicating the principal considerations which should 
be taken into account in a true conception and 
solution of it, and thus to disengage it from those 
prejudices and ambiguities with which the best- 
intentioned people sometimes surround it. 

I must touch upon questions no less delicate 
than important in theology, in philosophy, and 
particularly in international law. Moreover, the 
matter is one that more than any other depends 
exclusively upon the supreme teacher and ruler of 
the Church. It will not, then, be superfluous to say 

5 



6 



Preface 



openly at the start what I believe to be the true 
Catholic attitude in this as in all other questions. 

I profess, then, from the bottom of my heart, with 
Pius IX., that *' the obligation by which Catholic 
teachers and writers are strictly bound is not 
restricted only to those doctrines which are pro- 
posed by the infallible judgment of the Church as 
dogmas of faith to be believed by all," 

I declare, moreover, that here, as in all teaching, 
I look upon it as a sacred duty to avoid " the au- 
dacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, 
contend that * without sin and without any sacrifice 
of the Catholic position, assent and obedience may 
be refused to those judgments and decrees of the 
Holy See whose object is declared to concern the 
Church's general good and her rights and disci- 
pline, provided only they do not touch the dogmas 
of faith and morals.' " 

I am profoundly convinced that this is griev- 
ously opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full 
power divinely given by Christ Our Lord to the 
Bo man Pontiff of leading, ruling, and governing the 
Universal Church." ' 

To the Roman question in particiiiar we would 
apply the words of Leo XIIL: 

" Every one should rely upon the judgment of 
the Holy See, and conform to it his senti- 
ments." ^ 

The principles to be followed in the present 

> Encyclical " Quanta cura." 

* Oportet Apostolicae Sedis stare iudicio, et quod ipsa senserit, sentire 
singrulos. (Encyclical " Immortale Dei.") 



Preface 



7 



question are given with, a perfect lucidity in the 
letter of Leo XIIL to Cardinal RampoUa. This 
letter can justly be called a masterly resume of tlie 
question in all its phases and in all its extent. It 
will serve us, then, as our principal guide and sup- 
port. 

Papa Beatissime, si minus perite, aut parum caute 
forte aliquid positum est, emendari cupimus a te, qui 
Petri et fidem et sedem tenes' 

J. S. 

Washington, D. C, 

Feast of St. Joseph, 1892. 



» St. Jerome to St. Damasus. 



LIST OF REFERENCES 



WOEKS TO BE CONSULTED 



/ destini di Boma. Father Brunengo, S.J. 
Tlie Independence of the Holy See. Cardinal Man- 
ning. 

La Question romaine internationale et anglaise et non 
pas seulement italienne. Bishop Vaughan, of Salford, 
England. [To my regret, I have not within reach 
the English original of this beautiful little work, 
and am compelled to rely upon the French transla- 
tion made by the Abbe Moreau.] 

Les Belations entre le Saint Siege et le Royaume 
d'ltalie. Marquis de la Vega de Armijo. Trans- 
lated from the Spanish by the Abbe Moreau. 

Etude sur la Question romaine. Abbe Vennekens, 
Brussels, 1890. 

La verita nella soluzione della questions Romana. 
A work authorized by Leo XIII. himself (1888). 



I would also call attention to the numerous essays 
of Orestes A. Brownson on the same question, as 
well as to the following remarkable articles which 
have appeared in two of our best American reviews : 
** Liberty and Independence of the Pope," Very 

11 



12 



Works to be Co?isulied 



Kev. Isaac T. Hecker, Catholic World, April 1882 ; 
and "Nationalism, the Conclave and the next 
Pope." Rt. Rev. Mgr. Bernard O'Reilly, American 
Catholic Quarterly Review, January 1892. 

The celebrated French economist Leroy-Beau- 
lieu has written in the Revue des Deux Mondes 
three articles under the title of " Le Yatican et 
le Quirinal depuis 1878 " which have justly at- 
tracted general attention. The author is not a 
Catholic believer, and treats the Roman question 
mainly from the international point of view. — See 
also " The Foreign Policy of Italy," by the well- 
known Belgian writer Emile de Laveleye, in the 
Contemporary Revieiv, March 1892. 

Special mention is due to the Civilta CattoUca, 
which has always taken a front rank among 
Catholic periodicals in its able defence of the rights 
of the Holy See. 



ANALYSIS 



ANALYSIS 



L Opportuneness of the Discussion. 

1. Recent patriotic objections. 

2. Unremitting papal claims. 

a. Assertions of right to temporal power. 
h. Catholics urged to second papal de- 
mands. 

3. Concurrence of the Universal Episcopate. 
II. The Catholic Position. 

4. Origin of the temporal power. 

5. The perpetual primacy of the Eoman 

bishop. 

6. Problem not soluble by transfer of the 

primacy. 

7. Doctrinal value of papal utterances on 

the temporal power, 
a. Intimate connection between papal 
independence and the temporal 
power. 

&. The obligation of religious assent to 
the decisions of the Holy See in 
the matter. 



16 



Analysis 



III. Statement of the Problem now befoee 
Ameeican Catholics. 

8. Eeconciliation of the temporal power of 

the popes with — 
a. The sovereignty of the people. 
h. The principle Salus publica suprema 

lex. 

IV. Indirect Answer to Objections against the 
Temporal Power. 

9. True and perfect obedience due to the 

Pope. 

10. Obligation of obedience not dependent 

upon the conformity of autlioritative 
utterances with private theories. 

11. Importance of a Catholic rather than a 

national standpoint. 
V. Examination of Objections based upon the 
Sovereignty of the People. 

12. Statement of objections. 

13. No popular sovereignty in the Church. 

14. Popular sovereignty as a political princi- 

ple. 

a. Extreme theory untenable. 
h. Moderate theory tenable. 

c. Impropriety of imposing it upon 

other peoples. 

d. True basis of American liberties. 

e. Conclusions. 

15. General attitude of the American citizen. 

16. Political aspect of the spoliation of the 

Papal States. 
a. Legitimacy of the papal kingdom. 



Analysis 



17 



h. Sanction of papal claims by the 
European powers. 

c. Declaration of the Italian govern- 

ment, 

d. Law of guarantees not sanctioned by 

other powers. 

e. Different attitude of powers towards 

other Italian sovereigns. 

f. Eecognition of the unique and inter- 

national character of the Eoman 
question. 

17. Religious aspect of the same in the light 

of— 

a. Common-sense. 
h. History. 

c. Christian concept of the Church. 

d. Eecent events. 

6. Utterances of the Popes. 

18. Brownson's statement of the case. 

VI. Examination of Objections based on the Su- 
preme Importance of the Public 
Welfare. 

19. Elucidation of the principle. 

20. Its applicability to the question of the 

relations between Church and State. 

21. The welfare of the whole Church de- 

mands the re-establishment of the tem- 
poral power. 

22. The temporal power a benefit to Italy 

itself. 

a. Its overthrow not the wish of the 
people. 



18 



A 7ialysis 



b. Its overthrow a source of misery to 

the Italian nation, 

c. Its existence the greatest glory of 

Italy. 

d. The occupation of Eome a detriment 

to Italy in her international rela- 
tions. 

e. Importance of religious concord to 

the cause of Italian unity. 

23. The temporal power a benefit to the 

whole world. 

a. The Holy See as an international 

arbitrator. 

b. The Holy See as a conservative and 

progressive power. 

24. The Papal States compared with the 

District of Columbia. 
a. As Washington is politically to the 

United States, 
6. Rome is religiously to the world. 
YII. What should be the Solution of the Roman 
Question ? 

25. The question still open. 

26. Necessity of co-operation with Provi- 

dence. 

27. This duty devolves on the Italian govern- 

ment, other Christian governments, and 
the whole Catholic world. 

28. The temporal sovereignty must be re-es- 

tablished. 

29. The Pope alone must determine the con- 

ditions of its re-establishment. 



Analysis 



19 



30. The solution can and should be pacific. 

31. Sentiments of the Italian court. 

32. Advisability of its taking the initiative 

in the matter. 
YIII. The Present Duty of Catholics in the Prem- 
ises. 

33. Existence of such a duty. 

34. How it should be fulfilled. 

35. Importance of popular action. 

36. Our responsibilities cannot be shifted 

upon the Italian Catholics. 

37. Appeal to the Catholics of America. 

Appendix. Twenty theses on the Roman Question, 



AMERICAN CATHOLICS AND THE 
ROMAN QUESTION 



AMERICAN CATHOLICS 

AND 

THE ROMAN QUESTION 



I. Oppoetuneness of the Discussion 

1. Some time ago the Catholic World published an 
important article on the temporal sovereignty of 
the pope from the pen of one to whom we can 
apply a well-known phrase: Cuius laus est in universa 
AmericcB ecdesia.'^ A distinguished Catholic priest, 
in his remarks on this article, incidentally called 
attention to an objection " which rises naturally in 
the minds of republican Catholics." He formulates 
this objection in the following words: 

There is no use trying to enlighten the Catholic laity, un- 
less you place in the clearest light the consistency between the 
right of the pope to independence and the right of the people 
to self-government. That- the pope ought to be free to treat 
with all the nations of the earth of course all admit, but how 
his temporal sovereignty consists with republican principles 
is the question to be treated in an article addressed to the 
people of these United States; and Catholic writers should 
devote their energies to making clear this aspect of the great 

* Very Reverend A. J. Hewifc, Catholic Worlds December 1890. 

23 



24 



Opportuneness of the Discussion 



and important subject. We Catholics live in the midst of 
fifty-five millions of people estranged from the Church and 
holding, theoretically at least, this latter principle; we cleave 
to it ourselves as well; in order, therefore, that we may give 
to the pope " reasonable service " in this matter, and give also 
to our fellow-citizens " a reason for the faith that is in us," and 
answer their demand "why we meddle with the affairs of 
Italy," we must have more on the subject.' 

We entirely agree witli this conclusion. We are 
sincere Catholics and sincere patriots. A theoret- 
ical or practical consequence of Catholic doctrine 
can never conflict with true patriotism. Contradic- 
tions can therefore only be apparent; and objections 
on this score must be either inexact and grounded 
on a defective knowledge of Catholic teaching, or 
not to the point. 

2. The appropriateness of treating the question 
is therefore manifest. Another consideration will 
prove its opportuneness and necessity. The pope, 
according to Catholic doctrine, is not only the infal- 
lible teacher, but also the supreme ruler of the 
Church. A Catholic owes the assent of faith to his 
doctrinal definitions, and perfect obedience to his 
orders and precepts. Entire docility in both cases 
is the characteristic of a true Catholic' 

1 We may be allowed to mention that, before the above lines came to our 
notice, we referred to the difificulty, and answered it substantially, in an 
article in which we openly defended the application of the principles of self- 
government to France. See American Catholic Quarterly Review, Jan- 
uary 1891, " Cardinal Lavigerie and the French Republic," p. 120, note, 

2 Summus autem est magister in Ecclesia Pontifex Romanus. Concor- 
dia igitur animorum sicut perfectum in una fide consensum requirit, ita 
volunta es postulat Ecclesiae Romanoque Pontifici perfecte subiectas atque 
obtemperantes, ut Deo. Perfecta autem esse obedientia debet, quia ab ipsa 
fide prsecipitur, et habet hoc commune cum fide, ut dividua esse non possit 
.... cuiusmodi perfectioni tantum Christiana consuetudo tribuit, ut ilia 
tanquam nota internoscendi catholicos et habita semper sit et habeatur. 
(Encyclical "Sapientiaa Christianae," 1889.) 



Oyportuneness of the Discussion 



25 



The following facts are undeniable: First, the 
pope himself does not cease advocating his claims 
to the temporal power. In the Encyclical "Inscru- 
tabili," 21st April, 1878, he says: Never shall we 
abstain from claiming that freedom be again re- 
stored to the Holy See by the recovery of the 
temporal power. Therefore we renew all the 
declarations and protestations of our predecessor, 
Pius IX., of blessed memory." Again: It is our 
sacred duty," he says in an allocution to the College 
of Cardinals, March 2, 1880, " to preserve our right 
intact in spite of all opposition to the contrary, no 
matter whence it comes." This alone is enough to 
convince a Catholic that the " concordia animorum " 
forbids silence on this question; more especially at 
this time, when our Father in his distress and afflic- 
tions appeals to the hearts of his children for 
sympathy and redress. 

Secondly, the Holy Father expressly calls upon 
the Catholics of the whole world to second his 
efforts in the defence of his rights and the restora- 
tion of his territorial independence, and thus prove 
themselves devoted and loyal Catholics. "The 
Catholics of the various States can never hold 
their peace until they see their chief, the teacher 
of their faith, the guide of their consciences, again 
possessed of true liberty and really independent." ' 
Therefore the Holy Father doubts not " but that 
all Catholics all the world over will support, openly 
and unrestrained, these rights of the Holy See." ^ 

* Letter to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Nina, August 27, 1878. 
9 AUocution, June 1, ]888. 



26- 



Opportuneness of the Discussion 



Frequently he directs this admonition to the Catho- 
lics of Italy itself/ With an affectionate tender- 
ness he reminds Catholic writers, and above all 
Catholic journalists, of this duty: "Therefore, my 
beloved sons, cease not, both by word of mouth and 
in your writings, to contend that the temporal 
sovereignty of the pope is necessary for the free 
exercise of his spiritual power." ^ 

3. Just one more fact. The canonization of the 
Japanese martyrs had brought more than three 
hundred bishops to the feet of the great Pius IX. 
in 1862. Before departing they presented His 
Holiness with an address in which they unanimously 
and in a most forcible manner gave expression to 
their approval of his solemn utterances concern- 
ing the necessity of the temporal power; they 
declared that " the Head of the Church could never 
be subject to any prince, or even depend upon the 
hospitality of one;" that "it is the duty of all 
Catholics to defend the temporal sovereignty and 
the patrimony of St. Peter," for the maintenance 
of which rights they should be prepared to go with 
him "to prison and to death." ^ 

Ever since the perpetration of the Piedmontese 

1 3d January, 1888. 

2 Address to Catholic journalists, February 22, 1879. 

3 Oportebat sane totius Ecclesias caput Romanum Pontiflcem nulli prin- 
cipi esse sublectum; immo nullius hospitem, sed in proprio dominio ac 
regno sedentemsuimetiuris esse. . . . Alto pariter et solemni eloquio decla- 
rasti, te civilem Romanae Eeclesise principatum eius que temporales posses- 
siones ac iura, quae ad universum Catholicum orbem pertinent, integra et 
inviolata constanter tueri et servare velle; immo Sanctae Sedis principatus 
Beatique Petri patrimonii tutelam ad omnes (Jatholieos pertinere; teque 
paratum esse animam potius ponere quam banc Dei, Ecclesiae et iustitiee 
causam uUo modo deserere (Alloc. 16 Sept. 1859), Quibus praeclaris verbis 
nos acclamantes ac plaudentes respondemus, nos tecum et ad carcerem et 
ad mortem ire paratos esse. (Declaratio episcoporum, 8 Jun. 1862.) 



Tlie Catholic Position 



27 



robbery in 1870, this accord of the entire epis- 
copacy with the Holy See has been manifested 
even more clearly on divers occasions. A Catholic, 
therefore, can entertain no doubt about it : obedi- 
ence to ecclesiastical authority, to the pope and 
the episcopacy, puts upon every Catholic the obli- 
gation to defend to the utmost of his ability the 
temporal sovereignty of the head of the Church, 
What is the fundamental reason of this obligation ? 
Is it the maintenance of a possession to which, 
both from an historical and juridicial standpoint 
the popes have an inviolable right ? No ; it is to 
be found in the intimate relation existing between 
the temporal power of the pope and the divinely 
ordained independence and freedom of the head 
of the Church, which is the freedom of the Church 
itself. Hence our position in the Koman question 
is prescribed by the inviolable rights of our father, 
of the Church, and of all the CathoKcs of the v/orld. 



II. The Catholic Position 

4. A few preliminary remarks must be made in 
order to define exactly from what motives and in 
what sense Catholics declare the temporal power 
to be necessary. 

We treat this question from the Catholic stand- 
point, as in it is involved that twofold obedience 
which the Catholic owes. Our non-Catholic fellow- 
citizens must likewise accept the same standpoint 
as the basis of their criticism. We need not prove 
to a child of the Church that the pope, by divine 



28 



The Catholic Position 



disposition, has the right and the duty to rule the 
Church in perfect independence of any earthly 
power, and that, by the same divine right, he is 
exempt from any secular jurisdiction whatsoever. 
He therefore is, as Leo XIII. expresses it, " by the 
express will of the Founder of the Church not 
subject to any secular power." ^ 

The right to this independence is essential to the 
papacy. The exercise of that right, however, is 
not absolutely necessary to the existence of the 
Church {ut Ecdesia sit), but it is necessary for the 
perfect development of its social life {ut bene sit). 
Providence availed itself of the temporal power 
as a means to secure to the popes the free and 
undisturbed development of their sublime pre- 
rogative. 

In the early ages, triumphant and victorious 
through all the many and bitter persecutions, the 
Church had the stamp of her divine origin set 
upon her. Those years might be called the 
Church's infancy. The time came, however, when 
she was to put forth the full vigor of life. The 
freedom and independence of the head of the 
Church was, by divine Providence, to foster its 
steady growth, and thus it came to pass that the 
popes acquired the temporal dominion over Pome, 
the seat of their pontificate.' No unbiassed his- 
torian has ever called into question the legitimacy 
of this temporal dominion, and that, too, consider- 
ing only its historical origin. This, for us, is a 

» Letter to Cai dinal Rampolla, 15th June, 1887. 
2 Idem. 



The Catholic Position 



29 



settled question in our present discussion. It is 
equally unnecessary to prove that the pope, since the 
spoliation of his States, September 20, 1870, no 
longer enjoys that liberty and independence which 
the nature and dignity of his office demand. 
Verius in aliena potestate siimus quam nostra — " We 
are more really in the power of another than our 
own." We might refer to two facts which will 
convince even the most ardent friend of Italian 
unity of the truth of these w^ords of Leo XIII.: the 
outrageous scandals of which Eome was the scene 
in the early part of October, 1891, when the city 
echoed the cry " Abasso ilpapaf' and the infam- 
ous insult which was heaped upon the corpse of 
the great Pius amid the demon-cries, " Al fiume ! " 
These two events in the history of New Italy speak 
more than volumes. 

A. Catholic cannot rejoin : Let the pope look for 
a free abode elsewhere. 

This is not the language of a child towards its 
father ; and every Catholic should know that such 
a decision belongs to the pope alone, and that the 
successor of St. Peter is responsible for it to God 
and to no one else. 

5. There is still another reason of much greater 
importance. The Catholic dogma of the primacy 
expressly teaches not only that it was instituted by 
Christ in St. Peter, and must continue for all ages 
in his successors, but also that from the beginning 
of the Church the bishop of Eome alone was the 
successor of St. Peter, and that to this day it is only 
as bishop of Borne that the popes succeed St. Peter 



30 



The Catliolic Position 



and possess the plenitude of apostolic power. We 
may add that it is a theological truth drawn from 
the teaching of faith that the primacy iure divino 
belongs, until the end of time, to the bishop of 
Rome alone, and that it therefore cannot be trans- 
ferred even by the pope himself to another see. 
This is not the place to enter more fully into the 
explanation of this doctrine. The theological basis 
for the temporal power is to be found in the dogma : 
The bishop of Rome and he alone always was and 
is up to the present day the successor of St. Peter. 
The immutability of this relation between the pri- 
macy and the see of Rome only serves to enforce 
the argument. As to this, it is sufficient to say that 
no other see can become the "apostolic see of 
Peter." It is only the see of Rome in which the 
pope is " the successor of Peter, prince of the apos- 
tles." It must always remain true, because it is de- 
fined, that " the Roman pontiff is the successor of 
St. Peter ;" that the Roman Church possesses by 
divine ordination the primacy over all churches." 
The profession of faith, " I acknowledge the Roman 
Church to be the mother and teacher of all 
churches," can never be changed ; the Church of 
Christ must always remain the "Roman Catholic 
Church." The translation of the Apostolic See 
to another city, for instance to Cologne or Balti- 
more, would necessarily change those definitions 
and professions into these : the Cologne Catholic 
Church," " the Baltimorian Catholic Church " ! We 
will add that the apostolicity is a visible note of the 
true Church, and that no change could take place 



Tlie Catholic Position 



without shaking the stability of the apostolic suc- 
cession and without serious detriment to the whole 
Church. All this goes to prove that not even the 
pope has a right to effect such a translation. As to 
any other ecclesiastical or popular power, it is a 
proposition censured in the apostolic letters of 
August 22, 1851, as well as in the Syllabus, " that 
the primacy may by a decree of a General Council 
or by the verdict of all nations be transferred from 
the Koman bishop and the city of Kome to another 
bishop or city." ' Such teaching w^as only the log- 
ical outcome of the Galilean and Febronian theory 
respecting the sovereignty of the people in the 
Church. In our own days it was Nuytz, professor 
in Turin, whose writings have brought about the 
condemnation of the aforesaid proposition. Would 
it be too bold to say that the same doctrine can be 
logically deduced from the following words of the 
Yatican Council ? — 

The holy and blessed Peter to this day, and always, lives, 
presides, and judges in the persons of his successors the bishops 
of the Holy See of Rome, which he has founded and conse- 
crated with his blood. Whoever therefore succeeds him in this 
see obtains his primacy over all the Church, according to the 
institution of Jesus Christ Himself.^ 

Leo XIII. has expressed the perpetuity of this 
privilege as follows: " What may be said generally 

iProp. 35. Nuytz meant a " General Council " without and even against 
the pope; " auctoritate Ecclesise," as Febronius expressed it. 

a Sanctus beatissimusque Petrus ... ad hoc usque tempus et semper in 
suis successoribus, Episcopis Sanctas Romanae Sedis ab ipso fundatae eius- 
que consecratae sanguine, vivit et prsesidet et iudicium exercet. Unde 
quicunque in hac cathedra Petro succedit, is secundum Christi ipsius 
institutionem primatum Petri in universam Ecclesiam obtinet. (Consti- 
tution " Pastor aeternus,"' cap. 2 ) 



32 



The Catholic Position 



of the temporal power of the popes holds still 
more strongly and in a special way of Rome. Its 
destinies are written large across all its history ; 
that is to say, as in the designs of Providence all 
human events have been ordered with regard to 
Christ and His Church, so ancient Rome and its 
empire were founded for the sake of Christian 
Rome ; and it was not without a special disposition 
of Providence that St. Peter, the prince of the apos- 
tles, turned his steps towards this metropolis of the 
pagan world, to become its pastor and to hand 
down to it forever the authority of the Supreme 
Apostolate. It is thus that the fate of Borne has been 
hound in a sacred and indissoluble way ivith that of the 
vicar of Jesus Christ.'' ' 

6. But suppose this translation were possible, 
still we cannot find therein a solution of the diffi- 
culty ; for elsewhere the same questions may arise.'* 
It therefore remains true that the pope as bishop 
of Rome, and according to the natural order of 
things in Rome and from Rome, governs and directs 

1 Letter to Card. RampoUa. 

2 We will mention as a matter of curiosity a book published] in Paris in 
1885, under the equivocal title of " Le Eetablissement du Pouvoir temporel, 
par le Prince de Bismarck,^'' in which the author, who is by no means a 
Catholic, undertakes to prove that the re-establishment of the temporal 
power of the popes is necessary from the point of view of international 
politics, that this question is very important especially for Germany, and 
that consequently the German and Austrian statesmen, and notably Prince 
Bismarck, are called to realize this desire of the Catholic world; that, 
finally, as Rome cannot be any longer the city of the papacy, it will be 
transferred to " a free, international, and neutral city." This city will be, 
according to the fantastic plans of the author, " the second eternal city, 
which is elevated like the first upon seven hills; Roma Nova— Constanti- 
nople, after the destruction of the Ottoman Empire " I 

Two years ago a French Catholic author, the antipode of his compatriot 
Drumont by his predilection for the Jewish race, predicted to us the 
transition of the see of St. Peter to Jerusalem, and a series of great popes 
and great bishops of Semitic blood. 



Tlie Catholic Position 33 

the affairs of the Church of God unmolested, and 
that in Kome at least he must not be subject to any 
secular authority, that is, the pope must also be 
the temporal* ruler of Eome. In this sense Cath- 
olics in concert with the pope declare the necessity 
of the temporal power. 

7. In the face of the many and luminous declara- 
tions in which the popes, and especially Pius IX. 
and Leo XIIL, have affirmed tL^ necessity of the 
temporal power for the free and independent exer- 
cise of their apostolic authority, a Catholic may 
raise the following questions : Are these declarations 
of the popes decisions or decrees of the Holy See 
to which Catholics are bound to give their religious 
assent {assenstis religiosus), that internal and ex- 
ternal obedience which the sacred authority of the 
Church demands, or do they exact more than this ? 
That is, have the popes in their encyclicals and apos- 
tolic letters delivered a definitive and infallible 
judgment on this matter, and must Catholics re- 
spond to the infallible teacher by an act of faith ? ^ 

Certain Italian and Italianizing theologians, turn- 
ing theology into politics, were, and still are, fond 
of the following style of argument: If the pope 
and all the bishops of a General Council should de- 
cide that, under present circumstances,the Sovereign 
Pontiff needs the temporal power, we should not 
be obliged to submit, because they would not speak 

1 Not, of course, an act of divine and Catholic faith (/ide immediate divina 
et catholica), which can be given only to revealed dogma proposed by the 
Church, but the act of mediately divine faith (fide mediate divina vel ec- 
clesiastica'), with which we must accept the teaching of the Church when she 
pronounces definitively on doctrines or on facts connected with revealed 
truths. 



34 



The Catholic Position 



as doctors of tlie Cliurcli {come maestri ddla cMesa)^ 
their judgment having for its object matters which 
have not been revealed. This is purely and simply 
the Jansenistic distinction between the right and 
the fact. They pretend to admit the infallibility of 
the Church, but repudiate it as soon as she would 
exercise it ; and yet they boast themselves true Cath- 
olics — Catholics better and more enlightened than 
the pope and the episcopate ! The reasoning quoted 
above destroys the infallibility of the Church. The 
first thing required, nay, the essential supposition 
for the action of the Church's magisterium, is that 
this teaching authority cannot deceive itself when 
judging concerning the range of its power and the 
extent of its object. Her competency, then, is de- 
fined by the very fact of the definition ; in actu 
exercito, as is said in the schools. 

The encyclical " Quanta cura," December 8, 1864, 
indicates clearly that the infallibilifcy of the Church 
and of the pope extends also to " things which bear 
on the general good of the Church " (res ad honum 
generate ecclesice pertinentes). If the faithful are 
bound to believe with divine faith the right and 
necessity of the full and entire freedom of the head 
of the Church, his complete independence of every 
human power, who does not see how important it is 
to know the means which in certain circumstances 
constitute the principal and even the only way of 
assuring it ? But in our days the circumstances are 
such that the pope must necessaril}^ be the subject 
of a secular prince, if he is not a temporal sovereign 
himself. Therefore this temporal sovereignty is 



The Catholic Positmi 



35 



intimately connected with the full liberty which 
belongs to the Holy See by divine right. Hence it 
can well be the subject of an infallible definition, 
even though it be a fact, because it has become and 
is a dogmatic fact. All Catholic theologians agree 
on this point. " No one has ever dreamt," says the 
Civilta Gattolicaf that the temporal power is or 
could be the subject of a dogmatic definition, which 
is never issued except regarding revealed truths. 
But the sincere Catholic does not limit his obedi- 
ence to the dogmas alone ; he gives it to all the 
doctrines and teachings of the Church. This 
doctrine and teaching embraces, besides dogmas, 
many truths which are either dependent on dogmas, 
or connected with them by an interior or exterior 
bond. 

" Now the necessity of the temporal power of the 
Boman Pontiff at the present time, although, as we 
have said, it is not and cannot be a dogma, is, 
however, contained in the doctrine and teaching of 
the Church, because it has been solemnly pro- 
claimed by all the bishops of the Catholic world 
and by their head, the pope." * 

In these words the Civilta indicates that as a 
matter of fact the necessity of the temporal power 
is already defined. We openly declare that we 
share in this opinion. But this need not be in- 
sisted upon here. For our present subject the two 
following conclusions are of importance : 

(a) Every good Catholic must admit the intimate 

1 Civilta Cattolica, January 15, 1876. See our article " Theological Min- 
imizing,'" in the American Ecclesiastical Revieiv, February 1891. 



36 



The Catholic Position 



connectiou between the independence of the Holy- 
See and its temporal power. 

(p) Every good Catholic owes assent and obedi- 
ence, at least religious assent, to those judgments 
and decrees of the Holy See in which the temporal 
power is declared necessary in order to secure the 
true independence of the head of the Church ; he is, 
as the Syllabus expresses it, " bound to hold most 
firmly " what the popes have taught (proposita et 
asserta doctrina) on the necessity of the temporal 
power in the documents cited explicitly by the 
Syllabus itself (prop. 25, 26), and " to conform his 
judgment to the judgment of the Holy See." 

The singular political theology of which we have 
spoken above was chiefly proposed and upheld by 
the Meddatore, " giornale politico, religioso, etc.'' The 
acts of the Vatican Council refer at length to this 
journal. It was against its arguments that the 
theologians of the Council had drawn up a plan 
for a conciliar definition on the temporal power in 
the following words : 

Renewing the decrees of the Apostolic See and of the 
Council, we condemn and proscribe the heretical doctrine of 
those who say that it is contrary to divine right that civil 
principality should be united to the spiritual power, and also 
the perverse opinion of those who pretend that the Church has 
no right to legislate with authority on the relations between 
this civil principality and the general welfare of the Church, 
and that, consequently, it is permissible for Catholics to 
depart from the decisions of the Church in this subject and to 
hold other sentiments. ^ 

1 Sacro approbante Concilio innovantes huius Apostolicae Sedis ac pree- 
cedentium Conciliorum iussa ac decreta, damnamxis atque proscrihimus 
turn eorum hcereticam doctrinam, qui affirmant, repugnare iure divino ut 
cum spiritual! potestate in Romanis Poutificibus principatus civilis coniun- 



The Catholic Position 



37 



The adnotationes of the same theologians, after 
having explained the Ilediatore's theory, the sub- 
stance of which is given above, add : 

But these doctrines are really detestable, altogether per- 
verse and dangerous, full of sedition and of scandal, and offen- 
sive to pious ears. ^ 

We know well enough that a plan for a conciliar 
definition is not a definition of a Council ; but this 
scheme, elaborated by order of the pope, approved 
by him and by the Episcopal Committee, and sub- 
mitted to the bishops of a Council, surely furnishes 
us at least with a new proof of the definability of 
the doctrine in question, viz., of its intimate con- 
nection with the Catholic dogma of the primacy of 
Peter. 

Pius IX. declared in his encyclical of June 18, 
1859 : 

We openly affirm that the civil principality is necessary to 
the Holy See, in order that it may exert without any obstacle 
its sacred power for the good of religion.'^ 

Again in the apostolic letter of the 26th of March, 
1860: 

God has willed that the See of St. Peter should be pos- 
sessed of the civil principality, in order to protect and preserve 
the liberty of the apostolic ministry.^ 

gatur, turn perversam eorum sententiam, qui contendunt, Ecclesla non esse 
de huius principatus civilis ad generale christianae reipublicas bonum rela- 
tione quidpiam cum auctoritate constituere, adeoque licere catholicis homi- 
nibus, ab illius decisionibus hac de re editis recedere aliterque sentii-e. Acta 
et Decreta Concil. Vatic. (Coll. Lac. § vii, p. 572, 619 sqq.) 

i Sed doetrinse sunt istse plane detestabiles, perversee penitus ac perni- 
ciosas seditionisac scandali plenas, quasque piee aures non ferunt. (p. 622.) 

* Necessarium esse palam edicimus Sanctee huic Sedi civilem principa- 
tum, ut in bonum religionis sacram potestatem sine ullo impedimento 
exercere voluit. 

3 Quo [civili principatu] Deus banc Beati Petri sedem instructam voluit, 
ad apostolici ministerii libertatem tuendam atque servandam. 



38 



The Catholic Position 



In the allocution " Maxima quidem," June 9th, 
1862 : 

We take pleasure in recalling the unanimous consent with 
which you [the bishops] have not ceased to teach that this civil 
principality of the Holy See has been given to it by a special 
design of Providence, and that it is necessary in order that the 
Sovereign Pontiff may never be subjected to any other prince 
or to any civil power, that he may exercise his supreme power 
with perfect liberty for the greater good of the Church and of 
the faithful/ 

In regard to these and other utterances on the 
same subject the Syllabus says after § IX : 

Outside of those errors explicitly noted, several other errors 
are implicitly condemned by the doctrine expressly proposed 
and declared on the civil principality of the Roman pontiff, 
which should be firmly held by all Catholics. This doctrine is 
clearly taught in the allocution Qnibus qiiantisque [here fol: 
lows the citation of five other pontifical documents]/ 

See the " Declaratio Episcoporum " (June 8, 1862): 

We recognize that the temporal sovereignty of the Holy 
See is necessary, and that it has been established by the man- 
ifest design of divine Providence; we do not hesitate to de- 
clare that in the present state of human affairs that temporal 
sovereignty is absolutely essential to the welfare of the Church 
and the free direction of souls/ 

» luvat commemorare miram prorsus consensionern, qua . . . num- 
quam intermisistis .... docere, hunc civilem Sanctae Sedis principatum 
Romano Pontifici fuisse singular! divinae Providentiae consilio datum, illum- 
que necessarium esse, ut idem Romanus Pontifex nuUi unquam principi 
aut civili potestati subiectus supremam . . . potestatem . . , plenissima 
libertate exercere ac maiori eiusdem EcclesisB et fidelium bono, utilitati 
et indigentiis consulere possit. 

Praeter hos errores explicite notatos alii complures implicite reproban- 
tur proposita et asserta doctrina, quam catholici omnes firmissime retinere 
debent, de civili Romani Pontificis principatu, Eiusmodi doctrina luculen- 
ter traditur in Allocutione ' Quibus quantisque,'' 20 Apr. 1849, etc. 

3 Civilem enim Sanctae Sedis principatum ceu quiddam necessarium ac 
providente Deo manifeste institutum agnoscimus, nec declarare dubitamus, 
in presenti rerum humanarum statu, ipsum hunc principatum civilem pro 
bono ac libero Ecclesise animarumque regimine omnino requiri. 



statement of the Problem 



39 



III. Statement of the Problem 

8. We are now concerned with the task of reconcil- 
ing this duty of Catholics with certain principles of 
modern and particularly of American public law. 

We divide the objection into two parts, according 
to the two principles upon which it rests : The 
'people are sovereign; and Solus pvhUco. suprema lex — 
private interest must be subordinated to the public 
good. 

We must first agree on the terms we are to use. 
The harmony between the right of the pope to in- 
dependence and the right of the people to self-gov- 
ernment does not mean that the pope has a right 
to be the temporal ruler of Rome independently of 
the consent of the Eoman people, and that at the 
same time the Eoman people has actually a right to 
choose its own ruler. 

Nor shall we prove that the temporal power is in 
harmony with republican principles in this sense, 
that the pope's right to monarchical government 
does not exclude the right of the Roman people to 
proclaim the republic. 

We shall not strive to reconcile contradictions. 
The school of Fichte itself would find it difficult to 
do so; and surely no American principle demands 
it. 

If two rights are contradictory, then one of them 
is no right, or, at least, one of them ceases to be a 
right because of this contradiction. 



40 



Statement of the Problem 



Our task is to prove that we give " reasonable 
service " to our Church and to our country. 

Giving a reason for the liberty of thought and 
conscience guaranteed by our Constitution, we shall 
prove that as philosophers we admit, in abstractor 
not only the republican principle, but also in a true 
sense a sovereignty of the people. 

Giving a reason for our patriotism, we have only 
to prove that the Catholic view of the Roman ques- 
tion does not hinder us from being wholly and sin- 
cerely attached to our Constitution and from obey- 
ing the laws of our country. Freely giving a reason 
for the faith that is in us, we shall prove that 
neither the republican principle nor the right of the 
people to self-government has anything to do with 
the right of the pope to independence; in a word, 
that this right does not fall under any such princi- 
ple. 

The following words of Brownson are to the 
point : " Liberty is never to be understood as ex- 
emption from all restraints, nor from all restraints 
but those which are self-imposed, which are no re- 
straints at all. . . . There is a strong tendency, and, 
I hold, a dangerous 'tendency, among us ... to 
extol and defer to the alleged wisdom and good 
sense of the mass. . . . The genuine people, if 
their voice could really be heard, would be loud and 
earnest in condemnation of this tendency. ... In 
the name of science, of knowledge, of wisdom, of 
virtue, of the people, ... I for one solemnly pro- 
test against this servility to the mass, a servility to 
which a man never submits in good faith nor for 



Indirect A?iswer 



41 



honest purposes. . . . Let ns, then, cease our 
adulation of the mass, cease our insane efforts to 
adapt everything to the apprehension of the mass, 
to gauge the amount of truth we may tell by the 
amount the multitude can take in; and do our best 
to gain all truth, to nourish and invigorate our- 
selves for wisely-directed and long-continued efforts 
for the elevation of all men." 

ly. Indikect Answer 

9. We answer first : The objection is inadmis- 
sible in respect to the supreme authority of the 
Church, and doubly inadmissible because it views a 
Catholic question from an exclusively national stand- 
point. We will not pass over this reply, because 
we desire to define our position openly and without 
any equivocation. It is a distinguishing character- 
istic of Catholicity that both in doctrinal and prac- 
tical teachings it is most logical. Every attempt to 
weaken the principle of authority on which it rests 
is objectively uncatholic and subjectively very 
dangerous for genuine Catholic sentiment. 

We owe the pope a perfect, undivided, and ab- 
solute obedience in religious matters, not a simu- 
lacrum obedient icE, which is contrary to the very 
nature of the virtue, as Leo XIIL remarks in the 

1 Works of O. Brownson, vol. xv. p. 299 seqq. A careful study of the 
articles, " Origin and Ground of Government,'" " Demagogism," and " Na- 
tional Greatness," would answer the objection we are considering. 

We use the words " self-government " and " sovereignty of the people," 
although they cannot be strictly taken in their litei'al meaning. Their true 
sense will be made clear as we proceed. Let us also note that " republican 
principle" and "the right of self-government " are very different things; 
the one does not imply the other. 



42 



Indirect Answer 



encyclical " SapientisB Christianae." But the Koman 
question is a religious one, because intimately con- 
nected with the independence of the head of the 
Church ; and the pope has declared in unmistakable 
terms how every faithful child of the Church must 
consider the question and shape his practical con- 
duct in accordance therewith. 

10. Whether the pope is acquainted with our ob- 
jections or not is of no importance whatever. As 
supreme ruler of the Church, in his judgments and 
commands he is in no way dependent on our assent. 
We have not only to believe all that he as the in- 
fallible teacher of the Church defines to be of faith ; 
we must also obey him when as ruler of the Church 
he prescribes matters governing our practical con- 
duct. 

To act otherwise would be to make our in- 
dividual views the rule of our actior.s ; it would be 
to follow our own mind and not that of the Church, 
which the pope represents juridically, i.e., possessing 
the plenitude of all ecclesiastical power. Si quce vult 
tenet, et quce non vult non tenet, non iam inhceret Ec- 
clesice . . . sed proprice voluntati, as Leo XIII. says 
in the same encyclical, following St. Thomas. 

Therefore we might simply reply to our oppo- 
nents : We do not need to enter into your theories 
respecting the sovereignty of the people, etc.; you 
owe the head of the Church the same childlike 
obedience as a simple peasant who has perhaps 
never heard anything of your philosophico-political 
principles^, or, if he did, would not understand them. 
This is the true Catholic position, as it was taught 



Indirect Amswov 



43 



by the divine Founder of tlie Cliurcli Himself, who 
has built it on Peter and on Peter alone. 

11. In our religious duties we are not to look to 
nationalism as our guide, but to the Church's au- 
thority. As a matter of fact we know full well that 
the faithful performance of our duties as citizens of 
the United States does not bring us into conflict 
with any doctrinal or moral teaching of the Catholic 
religion. As Catholics, and precisely because we 
are Catholics, we should not allow any one to sur- 
pass us in that respect. But the objection supposes 
the opposite, which will explain our categorical 
answer. 

If every nation of the world asserted its national 
standpoint as a condition sine qua non of its obe- 
dience to the pope, what would be the result ? Have 
they not all the same right to hold their national 
traditions, customs, and regulations as we Ameri- 
cans ? The Church, like a loving and just mother, 
always respects national peculiarities and all just 
claims founded on them. In this the Church gives 
us an example worthy of imitation. But just as she 
unites all in the unity of faith, she also desires all 
to be one in obedience to her visible head. Ecdesia 
nationum, non vero nationalis ! This is the motto of 
the Catholic Church, which is contained in the 
apostolic dictum : " There is neither Jew nor Greek, 
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male 
nor female ; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." ^ 
Moreover history shows by sad examples to what 



1 Galatians iii. 28. 



44 Hie SoverGignty of the People 

an uncatholic result nationalism leads. Photins 
brought about the most terrible schism in the name 
of Greek sentiment against the Latins ; Luther dis- 
guised his apostasy by publishing in 1516 a " Ger- 
man theology " against Komanism " ; Gallicanism 
sought a support in the so-called " traditions of the 
Church of France " ; Dollinger's lamentable deser- 
tion was already sealed when he set in 1863 the 
" German science " in opposition to the Roman 
school." In short, all spurning of the authority of 
the Holy See must inevitably strengthen the hands 
of those whose battle-cry has ever been : Away 
from Eome ! All nationalizing in Catholic ques- 
tions has at all times weakened the true Catholic 
spirit, made room for a diluted and vapid Catholi- 
cism, and prepared the way to that ugliest excres- 
cence of nationalism which is known in some 
countries as " State Catholicism." 

Y. The- Sovereignty of the People 

12. Now let us attempt a direct answer and a com- 
plete solution. Our opponents say : We have 
positive reasons to reserve our judgment on the 
Eoman question. For, as Americans, we recognize 
the principle of popular sovereignty ; it is the 
ground-work of the Constitution ' of the United 
States, the support of our public and political life. 
But now, did not the Italian, or at least the Roman, 
people desire the fall of the temporal power of the 
pope ? Is it not a contradiction, then, for us to 
extol the sovereign will of the people of this country 



Hie Sovereignty of the People 



45 



and at the same time to approve of the restoration 
of the territorial independence of the pope? Is 
that not virtually to deny the sovereignty of another 
people?" 

13. We ask, has popular sovereignty any place 
in the Church ? The answer of Catholic doctrine 
is No. To enter deeply into a confirmation of this 
answer here would be out of place, but a concise 
explanation is necessary to illustrate the religious 
aspect of our question. 

The Church is an institution essentially super- 
natural, to which all men, by the decree of God, 
must look for salvation. The Incarnate Son of 
God founded it immediately and in His own per- 
son, and gave it that authority which was to bring 
about that happy and blessed union here below 
whose highest ideal and archetype is in heaven, "that 
they all may be one as Thou, Father, in Me and I in 
Thee." But more than this. The divine Founder 
of the Church not only defined the spiritual power 
His Church was to exercise for that end, but He 
also designated in particular who were to exercise 
it. Upon St. Peter and his successors He bestowed 
the plenitude of pastoral power ; to the successors 
of the other apostles — the bishops — He entrusted 
the direction of particular churches " in which the 
Holy Ghost had placed them." Every pope re- 
ceives immediately from Christ the entire apostolic 
authority with which Peter, the first pope, was 
endowed. This authority is, therefore, neither in 
its origin nor in its exercise, dependent on the 
approbation of the Church, the bishops, priests, or 



46 



Tlie Sovereignty of the Peo2)le 



laity. The episcopacy, no less than the papacy, is 
of divine institution ; it is an essential institution 
of the Church. Nevertheless it remains true that 
only one rules the whole Church ; that only one 
possesses the fulness of power ; that all others are 
subject to him ; that he can judge all, but cannot 
be judged by any one ; that he is the centre of 
unity about which all must gather to be partakers 
of the kingdom of God. 

The constitution of the Church is, therefore, truly 
monarchical, though tempered to a certain extent 
with the aristocracy of the divinely instituted epis- 
copacy, but not mixed with it. The rest of the 
faithful are the ecclesia discens. The authority of 
the Church does not proceed from them, nor does 
it depend on them, either immediately or medi- 
ately. Still, all the offices of the Church, the high- 
est included, are within the reach of the humblest 
of its members. In this sense, and only in this 
sense, can we speak of a democratic element in the 
constitution of the Church. 

Efforts to introduce the principle of popular sov- 
ereignty into the Church have not been wanting. 
The court theologian of Louis the Bavarian, Mar- 
silius Patavinus, inaugurated the movement in the 
thirteenth century. He claimed that, according to 
the will of Christ, all ecclesiastical power is vested 
in the people. Gerson and Peter D'Ailly enunci- 
ated similar principles during the Great Schism of 
the West. The apostate, Mark Anthony de Dominis, 
sought to spread them in the seventeenth century. 
From his works the Galileans, especially Eicher, 



TJie Sovereignty of the People 



47 



drew their arguments ; J ansenism, Febronianism 
and Josepliism had recourse to the same theolog- 
ical arsenal for their weapons. At the time of the 
Vatican Council Dollinger renewed this theory, 
inasmuch as he claimed that the bishops at the 
Council are only mandataries of the people. The 
clear decisions of this Council dealt the death-blow 
to all these attempts. If, in spite of this, Catholics 
dare to assert, or write, that "the Church desires 
a non-Italian pope, who will grant the people a 
greater share in the government of the Church," 
we can only say that such an assertion is the 
untheological offspring of a narrow-minded nation- 
alism. 

Protestantism, to be consistent with its denial of 
the ecclesiastical principle of authority, was forced 
to place all ecclesiastical power in the hands of the 
people. It rejected the divine origin of the eccle- 
siastical hierarchy, transferred all power to the 
congregations, and degraded the " ministers of the 
word " to mere representatives of the people. Secu- 
lar princes, whose aid could not be dispensed with, 
were made the highest representatives of the com- 
munity. This was practically to convert the sov- 
ereignty of the people with regard to ecclesiastical 
matters into Csesaro-papism. 

14. We have now to consider the sovereignty of 
the people from a political, and especially from an 
American, standpoint. Is it a general principle ? 
Is it an American principle, and in what sense ? 

Popular sovereignty can be understood to mean 
that the ultimate ground and original source of all 



48 TJie Sovereignty of the People 

autiiority is the common consent of all ; tlie will of 
the people, and not God, of whom all paternity, all 
authority, is named in heaven and earth/ This 
principle is totally false, or rather no principle at 
all. Precisely in this sense did Hobbes and Eous- 
seau, the founders of this modern theory, put forth 
their doctrine ; each one adding a shade of coloring 
of his own. Their set purpose, in asserting the 
sovereignty of the people, was to separate and 
estrange society from any and every relation to a 
personal God — to establish the State without God. 
Though it does not always openly avow it. Liberal- 
ism employs this principle in the sense of the con- 
trat social, and for a like purpose. This theory of 
popular sovereignty renders it an immense service ; 
for it is a fruitful source whence are derived the 
means of furthering its plans, and legalizing State- 
absolutism. We are not to regard the sovereign 
power of the people in this atheistico-materialistic 
sense. 

Anarchists and socialists openly declare that the 
sovereignty of the people is to be so understood, 
and that they intend to carry out their plans on 
that principle as soon as they have a majority in 
the legislative bodies. 

The cynical saying of Bebel, Ja gdhe es einen Gott, 
dann ivdren ivir geleimt — "If there were a God, we 
would be trapped " — leaves no room for conjecture 
on that head. 

In Rousseau's system the source of all right is 



1 Ephesians iii. 15. 



Hie Sovereignty of the People 49 

the people, i.e., the majority of those who call them- 
selves the people's representatives, or the State, the 
government of which is determined by the people. 
In its political enactments, this sovereign people 
recognizes no divine or natural law — no inborn or 
acquired right. Whatever is legal is, according to 
this theory, allowable and good. Every change of 
government, every revolution, is ipso facto justi- 
fiable when it is accomplished by the people, or in 
their name. Quod populo placuit legis Jiabet vigorem 
— The will of the people has the force of law — 
under all circumstances. 

Shall we, can we, as Christians and as citizens, 
defend our position on any political question with 
this notion of popular sovereignty ? No ; never. 
That would mean, in other words : To be a good 
American citizen, one must tread under foot, at 
least theoretically, the rights of God and man ; or, 
the American citizen as such is a revolutionist 
against any and every authority above his own ! In 
the name of all that we hold sacred in our religion, 
in the name of our patriotism, we decline to defend 
our position on the Eoman question, or on any other 
political or politico -religious question, against the 
representatives of that principle, whether they call 
themselves socialists or not. "We can come to no 
understanding with materialism, or make any con- 
cessions to it. We are a Christian people. We 
despise a Eobespierre who, in the name of the peo- 
ple, wished to do away with the existence of God 
by an enactment of the State ; we have just as little 
in common with modern political deists, who are 



50 TJie Sovereignty of the People 



striving to place Almighty God on the retired list 
with a pension. 

On political events, then, such as the overthrow 
of an existing government, we pass judgment accord- 
to the divine and natural law ; according to the 
eternal principles of justice which worldly power 
may thrust aside and despise, but which it can 
never subvert or destroy. Our only question, 
therefore, can be the following : 

Is it not a principle of natural law that God, the 
fountain-head of all authority, has placed political 
authority in the hands of the people, and that all 
government, whether monarchical or democratic, 
derives its authority directly from them ? 

Any one has a perfect right to hold this doctrine, 
and we do not oppose it ourselves. Most Christian 
philosophers and theologians have been and still 
are of the opinion that the popular consent is the 
proximate basis of civil society, and that the civil 
power as held by particular persons comes only 
mediately from God but immediately from the 
people. But it cannot be laid down as an unques- 
tionable philosophical principle of the natural law. 
It is at most but an opinion, even though it be a 
very probable one. There are many acknowledged 
authorities who do not even recognize the sover- 
eignty of the people to be a principle in that sense, 
but defend the opinion that the will of the people 
only designates the bearer of public authority, 
while God Himself confers on him immediately the 
power to rule. It would be preposterous to deny 
this fact, and not at all courteous to assert that the 



The Sovereignty of the People 51 

defenders of the last opinion have no good reason 
for it, and that the opposite must be perfectly 
obvious at first glance to all.' Moreover, it is 
well to remark that those who hold to the more 
democratic opinion do not concede to the people 
the right on the plea of popular sovereignty to 
violently rid themselves of a lawfully constituted 
government which has lost favor in its eyes. This 
would be to sanction revolution indiscriminately, 
as Rousseau has done. They likewise admit that 
there may be other legitimate titles to the exercise 
of supreme civil authority, as there have been at 
all times and are to this day. 

As Catholics, we are entirely free to embrace 
either one of these two opinions. The Church has 
defined nothing in this matter. She has been con- 
tent, at all times, to confront revolutionary machi- 
nations with the apostolic doctrine (on that account 
none the less evident to reason) that God, the au- 
thor of nature, created man a social being and 
therefore willed that authority without which a 
well-ordered society of free agents cannot be con- 
ceived. Therefore, all civil authority is mediately 
from God. In very truth, then, do the bearers of 
it reign by the grace of God. 

When a people determines to adopt a constitu- 
tion it can, most assuredly, without detriment to the 

1 The authorities for both opinions are cited in the works of Costa-Rossetti, 
S.J., who strenuously defends the first: Philosophia Moralis.p. 593, seqq.; 
Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 1888-90; Die Staatslehre der Christlichen Philos- 
ophie. St. Thomas treats this question, q. 2, 9, 10, a. 10; q. 12, a. 2; q. 105, 
a. 1; q. 90, a. 3; q. 92, a. 3. One of the most ardent and profound advocates 
of the rights of the people is Suarez, Defensio Fidei, 1. 3, c. 2; De Legibus, 
1. 3, c. 4. See also Brownson's Origin and Ground of Oovernment. 



52 



The Sovereignity of the People 



natural law, choose a democratic as properly as a 
monarchical form of government. It can positively 
declare through its representatives that in the gov- 
ernment about to be established the supreme au- 
thority, divinely ordained, actually proceeds from 
the people ; and that their representatives are only 
to exercise it as their delegates. In such a State 
or society the theory of popular sovereignty has the 
effect of a fundamental law, by which every loyal 
citizen must abide ; which he is to look to for the 
preservation of his civil and political rights, and 
which accordingly must guide him in the perform- 
ance of his duties. Thereupon the representatives 
of the people may declare : We accept the demo- 
cratic theory as the principle of the government 
under which we are going to live. A parliament 
with a thousand members could not do more than 
this. It is beyond its competency to change a ques- 
tion of natural and public law into a general prin- 
ciple which shall be universally binding. And if in 
our day the theory of popular sovereignty has been 
recognized in most States and has passed into cur- 
rent public law, it is significant of nothing but that 
modern governments have accepted it as the ground- 
work of their constitution. This is precisely the 
case in our glorious Republic. With us the sov- 
ereignty of the people is at the bottom of all civic 
obligation. Indeed, nowhere do we see it exercised 
so liberally. But the framers of our Constitution, 
who were by no means hostile to the interests of 
religion, did not dream of approving the theory of 



TJie Sovereignty of the Peo2jle 53 



popular sovereignty in tlie atheistical sense of a 
Bousseau. Just as little did tliey wish to decide 
the abstract question about the origin of civil au- 
thority. Considering the peculiar condition in 
which our people lived, they simply looked upon a 
constitution founded on the sovereign will of the 
people as the best for our country. 

From what has been said we draw a twofold 
conclusion. In the first place, we, as citizens of the 
United States, have an indisputable right to hold 
popular sovereignt}^ in the highest esteem ; to pro- 
claim aloud that it is the best system of government 
for the American people, because it accords best 
with our character and the traditions of our coun- 
try. But, on the other hand, it would be most 
ridiculous for us to maintain that we had thereby 
established a principle which is binding for all time 
and must be accepted hj all nations. With pre- 
cisely the same right might another system be 
adopted elsewhere, which might meet equally well 
the desires and be practically as well adapted to 
the necessities of that country as our system is to 
us. Did we attempt to impose our political views 
on other peoples, whose character and wants may 
be totally unlike ours, we would be untrue to our 
American sense of liberty. No. A true American 
is proof against the madness of ChauAdnism. God 
forbid that this foreigner should ever be natural- 
ized here ! 

The w^hole matter may be summed up as fol- 
lows : 



54 



Tlie Sovereignty of the People 



There is no popular self-government in the Cath- 
olic Church. 

No Christian can defend the right of the people to 
self-government in the sense of Eousseau's theory. 

Any Catholic may defend as true the opinion that 
civil authority comes immediately from the people 
and mediately from God. 

Every Catholic of the United States can, like any 
other citizen, acknowledge the right of self-govern- 
ment guaranteed by the Constitution, and his re- 
ligious principles need not suffer in the least. He 
may also consider this system as the best one for 
this country. He may also advocate that it be 
introduced into all countries for which it is suita- 
ble. Finall}^ he, like every other citizen, has the 
obligation to render obedience to the government 
established according to the principles of the Con- 
stitution. 

Now, it may be asked, does all this remain true, 
if we judge the Eoman Question as the pope does? 
if we not only desire the restoration of the tempo- 
ral power, but also defend it? 

Yes, even in this case, it all remains true. Nor 
do we contradict in any way our political views, or 
act contrary to our civil duties. If we Catholics 
acted otherwise we would be illogical and disloyal 
to our religious convictions. 

15. Let us consider in the first place the national 
standpoint. As citizens of the United States we 
must unreservedly acknowledge the Constitution, 
in the above sense, and fulfil our duties accord- 



The Sovereignty of the People 



55 



ingly. The obligation of a good citizen extends no 
furtlier ; it cannot extend further unless the liberty 
guaranteed by this very Constitution be such only 
in name. Or is it perhaps American to say : Every 
nation of the earth must be governed according to 
the same principles? This would be a ridiculous 
assumption. Is it necessary to pronounce death- 
sentence on all monarchies in order to be a true 
republican? This would be a contradiction of the 
very principle of self-government, which allows a 
people to transfer the supreme authority to any 
form of government which it may prefer, monarch- 
ical or democratic. Indeed, one can be a good citi- 
zen of any State without maintaining its form of 
government to be absolutely or even relatively the 
best. If this were not so what would become of 
liberty of thought? of liberty of science and re- 
search? It would be downright tyranny if a gov- 
ernment or a people strove thus to fetter free 
thought. 

Must a citizen of the United States approve of 
every revolution by which governments are over- 
thrown? Such theories would declare revolutions 
the order of the day ! Even the American people, 
notwithstanding its sovereignty, has no right vio- 
lently to overthrow the Constitution ; it has not even 
a right to forcibly oust the President or a majority 
in Congress before their term of office has expired. 
Thus, though every form of government be an imme- 
diately human institution, still from the very nature 
of the case it is a 'permanent mode of exercising au- 



56 



The Sovereignty of the People 



thority, and the people must pay deference to it as 
sucli/ 

16. Now what must our judgment be on the 
spoliation of the Papal States by Victor Emmanuel, 
considering it simply as a political event ? 

Let us first merely glance at the overthrow of the 
pope's temporal power. The Italian or Roman 
people as such did not perpetrate that robbery. It 
was Freemasonry and the Piedmontese thirst for 
spoils which committed the outrage. The Roman 
plebiscite of October 2, 1870, was a mere comedy and 
can in no way be said to have been the manifestation 
of the "sovereign will of the people," even if we al- 
lowed that the subjects of the pope were sovereign. 
At present, however, we only wish to lay stress on 
the ground of principle. We therefore say : the 
pope is as legitimately and rightfully the sovereign 
of the Papal States as any monarch or executive 
ruler the whole world over. The legitimate form 
of government in his kingdom was always a purely 
monarchical one. Therefore the temporal power 
could not be set aside upon the plea of popular- 
sovereignty — not by the Romans and much less by 

1 We utterly deny the right of revolution, or the right to resist for any 
purpose whatever, legitimate government in the legal discharge of its func- 
tions. We repeat, then, that the right of rebellion and revolution on the part 
of the people is no right at all. The people can never have the right to act, 
save through the forms prescribed by the supreme authority. (Brown- 
son's Works, XV. p. 398.) The people of the United States and of the 
several States can amend the Constitution, but only constitutionally, through 
the government. The notion which has Jatterly gained some vogue, that ' 
there persists always a sovereign people back of the government or consti- 
tution or organic people, competent to alter, change, modify, or overturn 
the existing government at will, is purely revolutionary, fatal to all state 
government, to all political authority, to the peace and order of society, 
and to all security for liberty either public or private. {Id., vol. xviii. 
p. 451.) 



Ths Sovereignty of the People 57 

other Italians — except by the yiolation of justice 
and fidelity. 

But it will be asked : Has not the spoliation 
of Eome been at least approved as a fait accompli 
by the other powers ? History answers No ! 

From the point of view of the law of nations, the 
occupation by force of arms of the pontifical terri- 
tory by Italy is a conquest which is devoid of inter- 
national sanction, and which is justified neither by 
the necessity of legitimate defence nor by the exi- 
gency of repression. 

The papacy has never committed upon its neigh- 
bor any act of aggression which could authorize a 
defensive war involving as its fatal result the con- 
fiscation of the territory of the assailant. Besides, 
this taking possession has not been regularized by 
any treaty stipulating the renunciation of owner- 
ship in favor of the possessor, or by the general 
consent of the political community of nations. 
Yet in 1815 the treaty of Vienna sanctioned anew 
the temporal sovereignty of the popes, after the 
spoliation of Napoleon I., and thus the fate of the 
papacy, closely bound up with the fate of the Euro- 
pean equilibrium, finds itself equally under the 
aegis of the general treaties which form the inter- 
national code. 

The recognition of the title of King of Italy, 
no more than the transfer of the foreign ministers 
to the new capital, implied the sanction of the dis- 
possession of the papacy. For no one is ignorant 
that this double act was accompanied by express 
declarations and formal reservations which left no 



58 



The Sovereignty of the People 



doubt of the intention of tlie powers not to pre- 
judge the situation/ 

It is certainly very regrettable, as the Marquis 
de la Vega de Armijo has said, that the passive 
attitude of the nations, and particularly of the 
Catholic nations, has permitted Italy to realize the 
occupation of Rome. The great war between 
Prussia and France which arose at the moment 
will explain to a certain point this apparent indif- 
ference, but it can never excuse it entirely. Fouque 
might have repeated, in the presence of this sad 
spectacle : " It is more than a crime, it is a blun- 
der." But it is equally necessary to recognize the 
importance of the following facts, which must never 
be left out of sight. 

The Italian Government, almost to the very eve 
of the occupation of Rome, had caused the declara- 
tion to be made to the powers by the minister of 
foreign affairs (August 29, 1870) that it would 
regulate with the Catholic world the conditions of 
the transformation of the pontifical power. The 
representatives of the powers, on being officially 
acquainted with this declaration, signified to the 
Italian Government that their governments would 
not consider the occupation of Rome as a final 
solution of the Roman question, and reminded it 
of its duty to " effectually guarantee " the perfect 
spiritual independence of the head of the Catholic 
religion and the entire personal liberty of the 

* See " Lettre de Leon XIII. au Cardinal Rampolla,'" by T. D. F. T., 
Bruxelles, Vennekens, pp. 41, 43. 



Tlie Sovereignty of the Peoplt 



59 



pope/ Tiiereupon the minister Visconti Yenosta 
declared to the Chamber : " Italy assumes with 
confidence, in the face of Europe and of Chris- 
tendom, the responsibility of protecting the Holy 
See;" and still more: "The sovereignty of the 
pope bears the seal of the ages, and is recog- 
nized by the powers, either by solemn treaties or 
by diplomatic relations which they maintain 
with it ; " and again : " The Koman question 
concerns all the nations ; it is ' more than interna- 
tional.' " ' The Senator Cadorna, ]3resident of the 
council of state, recognized in 1871 that the final 
rearrangement of the Roman question was for 
Italy an " international obligation," and that " the 
absolute necessity of an efiective liberty for the 
pope created a right for all Catholics and for all 
their respective governments." * 

On the other hand, the powers have never recog- 
nized the Law of Guarantees " as a sufiicient 
assurance of the independence of the Holy Father ; 
eight years after the invasion of Rome, the Italian 
government took the risk of soliciting before the 
tribunal of Europe, at the Congress of Berlin, 
1878, a diplomatic ratification of the fait accompli. 
The powers responded by a categorical refusah 

The attitude of the same powers has been 

» See the declaration made by Bismarck. October 8, 1870; by M. Jules 
Favre, in the name of the French Government, September 6, 1870 ; and the 
reports in which the ministers to Italy of the various governments express 
the sentiments of the latter: notably the reports of Mr. Minghetti, minister 
at Vienna (December 10, 1870), of Mr. Barral, minister at Brussels (Septem- 
ber 12, 1870), of Mr. Melegari, minister at Berne (September 6, 1870), and of 
Mr. Cadoma, minister at London. 

« April 21, 1871. s April 22. 1871. 

*See Vaughan, chap, iv.; Vennekens, chap. ii. 



60 



TJie Sovereignty of the People 



entirely different towards other Italian sovereigns 
despoiled of tlieir territories, sucli as the dukes 
of Modena, Parma, and Florence, and the king of 
Naples, with whom all diplomatic relations were 
broken off immediately after the annexation of 
their states to the new kingdom. 

We have not here to examine the question 
whether the annexation of other Italian territories 
was legitimate, or if it was at least legitimatized 
by the consent and the well-being of the people. 
But in treating the Roman question solely from 
the political point of view, and particularly from 
the point of view of the law of nations, we observe 
that the powers have not wished to tie their hands 
in presence of the "accomplished facts" at Rome, 
and that in their eyes and in the eyes of the Ital- 
ian Government itself the Roman question has 
an altogether special and unique character, a char- 
acter truly international. All recognize accord- 
ingly the perfect exactitude of the words of Leo 
XIII. : 

This principalit}^ has a sacred character, which is peculiar 
to it, and shared with no other state, because upon it depends 
the security and stability of the liberty of the Apostolic See 
in the exercise of its sublime and important functions. ^ 

The interior reason of this fact is the inti- 
mate connection which the temporal power of 
the popes has with their spiritual power, as we 
shall see more clearly still as we now go on to 

iln quo quidem principatu . . . inest similitudo et forma quasdam sacra, 
sibi propria, nec cum ulla republica communis, propterea quod securam et 
stabilem continet Apostolicse Sedis in exercendo augusto et maximo suo 
munere libertatem. (Allocution, May 24, 1884.) 



Tfie Sovereignty of the People 61 



give expression to our Catliolic convictions on this 
question by considering its religious aspect. 

17. The dearest of all the liberties which our 
Constitution permits us to enjoy is liberty of con- 
science, the freedom to openly profess our religious 
faith and practise it by fulfilling the duties which 
it enjoins upon us. 

As Catholics we believe that the successor of 
St. Peter is divinely appointed by God to rule the 
entire Church, independently of any earthly 
power ; and that all Catholics owe him un- 
qualified obedience. Furthermore, we believe that 
the bishop of Eome and he alone is the successor 
of St. Peter. Our faith then teaches us that the 
bishop of Eome ought by divine right to rule the 
Church with freedom and independence, and that 
we owe him childlike submission. It is therefore 
the will of God that the freedom of the pope be 
secure in Eome, in order that he may be truly 
independent in leading the whole flock of Christ! 

This conclusion no Catholic can deny without 
serious detriment to the dogma of the primacy of 
the bishop of Eome. The following conclusion is 
just as certain : Against the will of God there is 
no sovereignty upon earth, whether it be that of 
a Csesar, of a people, or of all people taken together. 

The Holy Father indicates clearly this difference 
in the encyclical which he has just addressed to 
the bishops of France (February 16, 1892) : 

"Whatever be the form of government of a nation, it cannot 
be considered as so definitive that it should remain immutable. 
The Church of Jesus Christ alone has been able to preserve and 



62 TJie Sovereignity of the People 



will surely preserve unto the end of time its form of government. 
And, far from needing to change its essential constitution, it has 
not even the power to renounce the conditions of true liberty 
and of sovereign independence with which Providence in the 
general interest of souls has endowed it. 

But in regard to purely human societies, it is a fact 
engraven a hundred times in history that time, that great 
transformer of everything here below, operates profound 
changes in their political constitutions. 

Hence, no Catholic can ever approve of any act 
or condition of tilings by which the pope is bereft 
of perfect liberty. 

Ilia auterriy guce sursum est Jerusalem, libera est, 
quce est mater nostra! "Free she must be, that 
Jerusalem which is our Mother ! " ' Itaque fratres, 
non sumus ancillce filii, sed liber ce, qua libertate Christus 
nos liber avit ! " We are not the children of a slave, 
but of a mother who is freeborn." We claim for 
her that freedom which Christ our Lord purchased 
for her.' These grand words come to the mind of 
a Catholic when he raises his ej^es and looks aloft 
to the Koman Church, the mother and teacher of all 
the churches of the globe. The Lamentations of 
Jeremias are inadequate to give expression to his 
sorrow, when this Jerusalem, "the Euler of nations," 
" the Queen of the Provinces," is robbed of her 
freedom. 

The Eoman Church then must be free in the 
person of her bishop, the head of the Church. 
But if the pope has received from God the right to 
exercise his sublime office most fully and without 



> Galatians iv. 26. 



8 Gal. ii. 



The Sovereignty of the People 63 



molestation, tie is thereby entitled also to the 
means necessary for the perfecting of that liberty, 
and has a right to determine and demand them. 

Accepting, then, the doctrine of the primacy, (a) 
common-sense must tell every one that the pope is 
truly free in Kome when he is in no way subject 
there to another, or dependent upon another ; and 
that this independence has its surest guarantee, and 
is most effectually secure against every extraneous 
influence, when the pope himself is likewise the 
temporal ruler of Kome. 

If we consult (b) history, we find that the popes 
ever since the division of the Koman Empire have 
possessed a certain political power in Kome, which 
for the past eleven centuries has been of a truly 
regal character. 

Now (c) the Christian concept of the Church and 
of divine Providence tells us that God, "Who loves 
nothing dearer than the freedom of His Church," ^ 
thus shaped events that the freedom of the head 
of the Church should be made secure by his tem- 
poral power — "singulari scilicet prorsus divinse 
Providentise consilio factum est, ut Komano Imperio 
in plura regna variasque ditiones diviso, Komanus 
Pontifex . . . civilem principatum haberet." ^ 

Furthermore {d) the events of the last twenty 
years sadly but unmistakably prove that the pope 
is no longer free to exercise his office in Kome in a 
manner becoming its importance and dignity since 

1 St. Bernard. 

3 Pius IX., Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849; Leo XIII., 
letter to Card, Eampolla, 



64 



TJie Sovereignty of the People 



Victor Emmanuel forcibly entered by tlie Porta Pia 
and took possession of Kome as king of Italy ; for 
the pope, in spite of all guarantees, is completely 
dependent upon government measures and the 
wliims of ministers, the chambers of Parliament, 
and the rabble. 

Lastly, (e) we know from the clear and positive 
utterances of the popes themselves " that the tem- 
poral power of the pope is necessary at present in 
order that he may, freely and independently of any 
power or secular prince, rule and guide the entire 
Church." ' 

The last reason alone would be more than suffi- 
cient. The pope is the competent Judge in this 
question ; every Catholic must accept humbly his 
declaration. But we add, and Pius IX. emphasized 
it in the allocution quoted above, that the episco- 
pacy of the whole world more than once has 
repeated these same declarations of the head of the 
Church. 

It is not incumbent upon Catholics, therefore, 
to defend the temporal power because the pope 
was the legitimate prince of Eome, who was unjus- 
tifiably and violently despoiled of his temporal 
possessions. No, the real and true reason is a 
deeper one. They defend the liberty of the pope 
because he is pope, i.e., because he has been law- 
fully constituted the head of the Church by Jesus 
Christ. It is a question, therefore, of defending 
that liberty and independence to which the divine 

» Pius IX., Allocution, *' Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862 ; Leo Zm., 1. c. 



The Sovereignty of the People 65 



Founder of the Church has given His representa- 
tive an inalienable right. In defending his own 
rights he is defending our rights as Catholics. 
The means to preserve intact this freedom is the 
temporal dominion. Therefore we conclude that 
just as no power on earth has the slightest right to 
destroy the freedom of the Sovereign Pontiff, which 
God wills, so also no emperor or king or people 
has any right whatever to deprive the pope of the 
temporal power which he needs and must have in 
order to govern the Church with the freedom willed 
by Christ. The sovereign freedom of the successor 
of St. Peter is to-day necessarily conditioned by his 
temporal sovereignty ; therefore the latter, through 
the former, is rendered sacred and inviolable, and 
to attack it is to assail Christ Himself in the person of 
His representative. 

Victor Emmanuel had accordingly no more right 
to deprive the pope of the Papal States than had Na- 
poleon I. The occupation of Rome will always be 
a sacrilege no matter by what people it is effected. 
We say a sacrilege, for such in very truth it is, being 
"a sin against the immunity of a sacred place;" 
and as prescription has no force in sacred things 
and against ecclesiastical rights, the spoliation of 
Rome cannot be legalized by any title whatever. 
Hence the Constitution " Apostolicse Sedis " places 
the ban of excommunication {speciali modo Romano 
Pontifici reservata) upon all who either themselves 
or through others invade, destroy or retain the cities, 
lands, places or rights belonging to the Roman 
Church, or who usurp, disturb or retain the su- 



66 



The Sovereignty of the People 



preme jurisdiction therein; also on all who give 
help, counsel or favor to any of the acts aforesaid." ^ 
Is not this excommunication of itself sufficiently ex- 
pressive for every Catholic, who knows that it is 
the severest ecclesiastical punishment, and always 
presupposes grave sin ? Can there be any law or 
principle to justify that sin ? Knowing this, must 
not every Catholic openly condemn the invasion 
and retention? Unless he does so he is in direct 
opposition to the pope and to himself, and solici- 
tude for the maintenance of a so-called political 
or national principle would lead to the denial of 
an undeniable Catholic principle. 

A remark of St. Thomas on a similar subject may 
appropriately illustrate these deductions. The 
Angelical Doctor, along with the majority of me- 
diaeval theologians, defends, as is well known, the 
opinion that civil authority proceeds immediately 
from the people. In treating of the laws and 
customs of the Old Testament he makes the objec- 
tion : " "With the Jews the election of rulers was not 
sufficiently provided for, since no direction had 
been given to the people in this regard." He replies 
as follows : " That people was governed under the 
special care of God ; whence it is said (Deut. vii. 6.): 
•The Lord thy God has chosen thee to be His 
peculiar people therefore the Lord did not commit 
the election of the supreme ruler, the choice of the 
king, to the people, but reserved it to Himself, as 

* Invadentes, destruentes, detinentes vel per se vel per alios civitates, 
terras, loca, aut iura ad Ecclesiam Romanam pertinentes, vel usurpantes, 
perturbantes, retinentes supremam iurisdictionem in eis nec non ad singula 
prsBdicta, auxilium, consilium, favorem prasbentes. (I. 12.) 



The SoverpAgnty of the People 



67 



is clear from Dent. xvii. 15 : ' Thou slialt set him 
king whom the Lord thy God shall choose.' " ' 

Hence according to Aquinas there could be no 
question about the election of a ruler — the exercise 
of the sovereignty of the people in the proper sense 
of the term — because there can be no right of the 
people against the ordinances of God. Now, reason- 
ing from analogy, we say God provides in a special 
manner for His " peculiar people," the Holy Catholic 
Church, and in her, more especially, for the Koman 
Church, whose bishop by His express command was 
to be the successor of St. Peter and the head of the 
Church. By the special providence of God it came 
about that the temporal sovereignty also over Rome 
was given to the successors of St. Peter, in order 
that they might exercise freely and independently 
their sublime office. Hence with regard to the 
Eoman people it is true that since they are the 
objects of God's special providence, He has not 
committed to them the election of a ruler, but has 
reserved to Himself, i.e., to His Church, the right 
to determine by the election of the pope the person 
who is to be the king of Rome. 

It is our duty to speak plainly and forcibly. The 
religious aspect of the Roman question is for us 
the most important. Our non-catholic fellow- 
citizens will not recognize this argument as the 

1 Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod populus ille sub special! cura Dei 
regebatur : unde dicitur (Deut. vii. 6.): Te elegit dominus Deus tuus ut sia 
ei populus peculiaris. Et ideo institutlonein summi principis . . . elec- 
tionem regis non commisit Dominus populo, sed sibi reservavit, ut patet 
Deut. xvii, 15 : Eura constitues regem quern Dominus Deus tuus elegerit. 
(1. 2. q. 105, a. 1.) 



68 



27^6 Sovereignity of the Peo])le 



only true one, because they reject the religious 
principles on which it is grounded. They deny 
moreover the spiritual sovereignty of the pope ; 
hence, a fortiori, his right to independence. But they 
cannot gainsay our right to remain true and loyal to 
our religious principles. Do we Catholics enjoy 
only a partial and imperfect liberty of conscience ? 
They cannot but respect consistency ; and shameful 
compromise and cowardly faint-heartedness will 
surely not gain their esteem. Let us cling there- 
fore, above all, to the great American principle that 
we are free citizens and esteem religious liberty 
above all else. Let us proclaim clearly and posi- 
tively that as Americans we hold firmly to our 
Constitution, to the right of self-government and to 
republican principles, and believe that in general 
civil authority comes only mediately from God and 
immediately from the people ; but we maintain that 
there may be other legitimate titles to such authority. 
We have neither the right nor the intention of im- 
posing our views upon others. Just as it is not 
contradictory to our republican principles that 
monarchies exist elsewhere, so also we cannot 
reject d priori a constitution that does not recognize 
the sovereignty of the people. In any case, not 
even the most sovereign people in the world can 
have a right to violate the ordinances of God-I But 
we Catholics behold in the papacy an immediate 
institution of God, and in the temporal power the 
necessary condition of the divinely-ordained freedom 
of the pope. Therefore no right in the world, not 
even the right of self-government, can be appealed 



The Sovereignty of the People 



69 



to against that freedom ; and we may apply to the 
Roman question : " Quod Dens coniunxit homo non 
separet" — " What God hath joined let not man put 
asunder ! " 

18. We will conclude this part of our argument 
with the words of Brownson, who was always proud 
of being an American citizen, and whom all Ameri- 
cans claim as their own : " It is enough to say that 
the pope never was a subject of any temporal 
prince, and never can be. He represents Him Who 
is King of kings and Lord of lords. He is above 
all earthly monarchs, by the law of Christ ; . . . . 
the status of prince belongs to him by right of his 
office as vicar of Christ, for by that office he is de- 
clared independent, and clothed with plenary au- 
thority to govern all men and nations in all things 
relating to salvation." ' " The Eoman or ecclesiasti- 
cal state was a donation to the Holy See or to the 
Church of Eome. Gifts to the Church are gifts to 
God, and when made are the property, under Him, 
of the spirituality, which by no laws, heathen, Jew- 
ish, or Christian, can be deprived of their posses- 
sion or use without sacrilege. They are sacred to 
religious uses, and can no longer, without the con- 
sent of the spirituality, be diverted to temporal 
uses without adding sacrilege to robbery. Whoso 
attacks the spirituality attacks God. The temporal 
power of the pope is therefore not within the cate- 
gory of any earthly human government, but is the 
property of the spirituality. Victor Emmanuel, in 



1 See vol. xii, Pope and Emperor, p. 456. 



70 



Salus Puhlica Suprema Lex 



despoiling the pope, lias usurped Clmrcli property, 
property given to God and sacred to religious uses. 
The deed, which our eminent jurists and Protes- 
tant divines sympathize with and applaud, strikes 
a blow at the spirituality, at the sacredness of all 
Church property, of Protestant churches as well 
as Catholic churches — at the sacredness of all 
eleemosynary gifts and asserts the right of power 
when strong enough to divert them from the pur- 
poses of the donors. . . . Are they [the Protes- 
tant divines] so intent on crushing the papacy that 
they are quite willing to cut their own throats ? " ' 

VI. Salus Publica SurREMA Lex 

19. We cheerfully admit this principle. It does 
not militate against the re-establishment of the 
temporal power, but is rather a confirmation of its 
usefulness and necessity. It shows both in a 
brighter and clearer light. Let us therefore briefly 
consider its essence and the deductions made from 
it in the light of Christian jurisprudence and ac- 
cording to the teaching of Christian moralists. 

The common good is to be placed above that of 
the individual ; hence -duties towards society pre- 
cede, generally speaking, those towards self. The 
temporal welfare of the people is the immediate 

* See vol. xviii, Sardinia and the Holy Father, p. 451. This article carries 
the greater weight with it because it was written in 1871, a year after the 
spoliation of the Holy See, and in order to refute the arguments of Dr. 
Thompson and other Protestants who pretended to defend the " sover- 
eignty of the Roman people," saying that the sovereignty of the Roman 
State "is in the category of all earthly sovereignties." 



Solus Publica Suprema Lex 



71 



end of civil society. Government exists not for its 
own sake but for the people. A change of govern- 
ment or a change in the form of government, 
brought about by any event whatsoever, may be 
legitimate, even though effected by unlawful means. 
It suffices that the former state of affairs has be- 
come hurtful or impossible, and that, consequently, 
the welfare of the entire society requires the subse- 
quent situation to be upheld by all. Even he who 
does not admit the lawfulness of our War of Inde- 
pendence, or of the Belgian revolution of 1830, 
must concede that the governments thus established 
are perfectly legitimate. But if the above condi- 
tions do not exist, the members of such a society 
may tolerate the change of government, but cannot 
directly lend their aid to confirm or maintain it. 

20. If the claims of different societies be com- 
pared, precedence must be given, other things being 
equal, to the highest and most important. Since 
every society is made up of a number of rational 
beings united for the attainment of some more or 
less definite end, it is evident that the dignity of a 
society depends upon the loftiness of its end and 
on the number of intelligent beings who are striv- 
ing for that end. This truth must always be kept 
in mind when considering giyH and religious society, 
the State and the Church. 

The State has for its immediate end the temporal 
welfare of its subjects ; the Church, the eternal 
welfare of all mankind. Just so far as the impor- 
tance of eternal salvation exceeds that of temporal 
happiness, by so much the Church, by divine ap- 



72 Salus Puhlica Stiprema Lex 

pointment the mediator of eternal happiness, must 
take precedence in dignity over every civil society. 
There exists therefore a true subordination of the 
State to the Church. The Church cannot be made 
subservient to the State, and no transitory temporal 
considerations can prevent her from using the 
means necessary for the attainment of her sublime 
end. 

The ecclesiastical as well as the civil power are 
both supreme in their respective domains; but, 
though each has its own sphere, they should act con- 
jointly for the welfare of humanity. But the Church, 
because of her exalted end, is superior to the State, 

as the soul is superior to the body, and as the 
sky is above the earth." ' Or should the spirit 
give place to the flesh, the celestial to the terres- 
trial?"' 

Moreover, the Church surpasses also in excel- 
lence the civil organization of any people or nation, 
because her activities embrace a wider field. Her 
welfare is the welfare of all her children who are 
scattered over the entire globe ; nay, more : it is 
that of all men, for whom indeed she was insti- 
tuted. 

This is why, in case of a conflict of jurisdiction 
between Church and State, e.g., when both claim 
jurisdiction in the same matter, precedence must be 
given to the Church. This is no " mediaeval theory." 
It is Catholic teaching, which can be proven by 
sound reason and which Leo XIII., in union with 



1 St. Chrysostom. 



2 St. Gregory Naz. 



Solus Puhlica Suprema Lex 73 



the fathers and theologians, has clearly and dis- 
tinctly explained/ 

Suppose that the temporal advantages of a nation 
come in conflict with the welfare of the Church, to 
which that nation belongs, or hinders the Church 
in the attainment of her end, then evidently that 
nation must make its temporal interests subservient 
to the higher interests of the Church — which is 
identical with the nation's own higher interests, 
and with those of the faithful at large. ^ 

These are the conclusions which faith and reason 
draw from the principle Salus puhlica suprema lex. 

21. The tuelfare of the ivhole Church demands the 
re'establishment of the temporal power. 

The objection brought against this principle when 
applied to the Koman question may be stated thus, 
in clear terms : 

** Private interests must give way when there is a 
question of public welfare or of the common good. 
Now, the welfare of the Romans and Italians, that 
is, the public welfare of Italy, demands the main- 
tenance of the present political situation of their 
country ; consequently the pope's temporal power 
must be permanently abolished. It is therefore his 
duty to renounce his claims to temporal sovereignty, 
or at any rate Catholics need not strive to re-es- 
tablish it." 

1 Particularly in the encyclicals Immortale Dei, Quod Apostolici Muneris, 
Humanum Genus, Diuturnum. There is no need of citing authors in confir- 
mation of the above-mentioned principles; they may be found in any treat- 
ise on Christian Jurisprudence. Cf. especially Cardinal Hergenrother, 
Staat und Kirche^ viii., '• Die Lehre von der Superioritat der Kirche und 
ihrer Gewalt iiber das Zeitliche.'" 

' On the subject " How the Church, notwithstanding her higher aim. or 
rather by means of it, promotes the temporal well-being of nations," cf. 
Leo XIII., encyclical " Humanum Genus." 



74 Solus Puhlica Suprema Lex 



The first proposition is true, but it proves just 
the contrary of what our opponents deduce from it. 

Facts show the second proposition to be false ; 
but even granted it to be true, it would prove 
nothing against us. Hence, in any case, the con- 
clusion is false. 

As the temporal welfare must be subordinate to 
the spiritual, so likewise must the incidental claims 
of a single nation be subordinate to the demands of 
the Church and the Catholic world at large. Now 
the Koman question means the security of a spiritual 
good, the security of ecclesiastical liberty, through 
the territorial independence of the head of the 
Church; a claim most intimately associated with 
the well-being of the Church and the interests of 
two hundred millions of Catholics. 

Hence Bcdus rei-puhlicce Christiance suprema lex ! 

Rome, therefore, belongs to the Church, to her visi- 
ble head, and therefore to the whole Catholic world. 
The Papal States are the incontestable heritage of 
the common Father of Christendom, " the patrimony 
of Peter." Komans and Italians would have no right 
to rob Eome of its essential character, that of the 
centre of the Church, the capital of the Catholic 
world, even though their claims were unanimous, 
and they really did gain a national advantage by 
despoiling the pope, and subjecting the vicar of 
Christ to a temporal king. 

No, Kome is not a city like any other ! It is 
neither an Italian city nor a modern capital ; it is the 
city of the apostles, and the metropolis of the 
Christian world. It is the heritage of St. Peter, the 



Salus Pxihlica Suprema Lex 



75 



property of the Cliurcli Universal, tlie head and the 
heart of Christendom. 

Italy, therefore, owes it to the Church, to the 
Catholics of the whole world, as well as to the 
pope himself, to restore to him that liberty and inde- 
pendence indispensable to the government of the 
Church, viz., his temporal power. 

This is the unbending logic of philosophy, the 
logic of the ecclesiastical standpoint, the logic of 
Catholic consciousness. 

The following proposition stands out clearly in the 
light of present events. In order to enjoy sover- 
eign liberty, as the head of the Church, the pope 
must be a temporal sovereign. Only lately three 
enemies of the papacy have furnished eloquent 
commentaries upon the outrageous occurrences of 
last October — commentaries that must come home 
forcibly to the blindest adherents of nationalism 
and modernism. They were the speech of Minis- 
ter Kudini at Milan ; the circular of the Jew 
Lemmi, the Grand-Master of Italian Free-masonry, 
to the Italian . •. Brethren ; and the agitation of the 
demagogue Menotti Garibaldi against the so-called 
Guarantee Law. 

It is true, as some timid persons are fond of say- 
ing, that the Church will survive, though days of 
worse captivity and still greater affliction be in 
store for the venerable sufferer in the chair of St. 
Peter. She lived through ages of persecution 
when almost all her popes reddened the chair of 
St. Peter with their life's blood and she would live 
through the same ordeal again, by virtue of the 



76 



Solus Puhlica Suprema Lex 



divine life dwelling within her. But are these the 
sentiments of a child realizing the sublime dignity 
of its mother ? Is this the language of one who 
glories in his faith and is proud of being a Catholic ? 
Every true Catholic understands the non possumus 
of the successor of St. Peter in an entirely different 
sense ; and from deep conviction proclaims with 
him that " the temporal power of the pope is at the 
present time not only useful but necessary for the 
liberty of the Church." Necessary, because the 
Church has not only a right to live, but also the 
right to live free and unmolested ! Necessary, be- 
cause she has not merely the right to conceal her- 
self in the catacombs, under the surveillance of a 
questor, by the grace of the State, but she has the 
right to show her everlastingly youthful, beautiful, 
and venerable countenance to all people ! Because 
she has not merely the right to pass by the palaces 
of the mighty in the ragged garb of a poor servant- 
maid, a beggar imploring a place of shelter, but she 
has the right to pass majestically through human 
society, a royal personage with power to command 
and a gracious blessing for all, a queen adorned 
with that royal crown which the eternal King placed 
on her brow when He purchased her u^^on the cross 
at the price of His Precious Blood ! 

22. The re-estahlisliment of the temporal power a 
henefit to Italy itself. 

It only remains for us to show in a brief way that 
in the Roman question it cannot be said that Borne 
and Italy must sacrifice their temporal advantage 
for the common good of Christianity. The opposite 



Sdlus PuUica Stiprema Lex 



77 



is true. We will only mention tlie following 
facts : 

a. It is not true that tlie overthrow of the pope's 
temporal power was the work of the Koman or 
Italian people, and that the present situation fulfils 
their desire. We do not mean that the Italians may 
not be justly reproached for lack of energy in pro- 
claiming their Catholic sentiments. Nevertheless, 
Leo XIII. gave expression to the truth, when he 
said, on different occasions, that the great majority 
of the Italian people faithfully adhered to the 
Homan See. It was the confirmation of this fact by 
the grand demonstration of October 1, 1891, in St. 
Peter's, when, with twenty thousand pilgrims, not 
less than forty thousand Eomans and Italians knelt 
at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff, that induced 
the Grand-Master Lemmi to issue a most violent cir- 
cular.^ 

Apropos of the absurd deception of the plebis- 
cite, says Mgr. Vaughan,^ let us hear the Jewish 
editor of the Lihertd, Edoardo Arbib. He is as- 
suredly an impartial witness. 

"The plebiscites," he says, " were made in the 
midst of the terror of the Eevolution. The govern- 
ment is legal, because it has force to sustain it, but 
it is certainly not the government desired by the 

* The well-known liberal deputy, Fazzari, presented the following pro- 
gramme to his constituents: "The reconciliation between the Roman See 
and our government is the highest need, the most urgent necessity an d the 
sincerest wish of our Fatherland." He was elected to Parliament by an 
immense majority. Distinguished conservatives wrote to him: "'All Italians 
feel the truth of your resolution, but few have the courage to declare it 
openly to the official world." Cf. La Conciliazione tra il Papato e V Italia. 
Florence, 1887. 

2 Chap. vi. 



78 



Sahis PuUica Siiprema Lex 



people. The true Italy, the real Italy, is with the 
pope, remains with the pope, and hopes in the pope 
— e col Papa, sta col Papa, e spera nel Papa. 

" Do you see how the churches overflow and how 
the ballot-boxes are deserted ? How few go to 
vote! And do you know why? Because they 
do not believe in you ; because you appear to them 
a transitional government, destined to disappear." 

It cannot be too often repeated that the invasion 
of Eome is before all and solely a carrying out of 
plans woven in the anti-christian and anti-religious 
sects, whose war-cry is the destruction of Catho- 
licity, and by that means of Christianity, by the anni- 
hilation of the spiritual power of the head of the 
Church. Already in 1856 Cavour declared at the 
Congress of Paris that he " would bring about the 
fall of Eome and would shake the edifice to its very 
foundations." His plan miscarried at the time, but 
Mamiani already could say " that an eighth power 
had sat in the Congress of Paris — it was the Revo- 
lution." Crispi, who has called himself "the First 
National Conspirator," " Son of 1789," has also de- 
clared : ' " Between us and the pope there can be 
no truce." According to him and according to 
Mazzini : " It is the vocation of the Italian people to 
destroy Catholicism." Who is the chosen poet of 
the Italian Revolution? Carducci, the author of 
the "Hymn to Satan"! And what was the real 
reason of the apotheosis of the infamous Giordano 
Bruno and of the grotesque saturnalia celebrated. 



1 June 17, 1887. 



Salus Puhlica Suprema Lex 



79 



with the concurrence of the government, in the 
city of the popes, if not his unbelief and his fero- 
cious hatred against the Church and the Holy See ? 
The honors rendered to such a man signify, then, 
that it is necessary to dechristianize the world and 
drive men to revolt against the authority of the 
vicar of Christ.' 

h. Far from having promoted the welfare of 
Italy, the proclamation of Italian unity has caused 
it to suffer greatly and has well-nigh ruined it. 
Eome and all Italy are suffering from the mat di 
Roma, the Koman plague, that is, financial embar- 
rassment and poverty, the outcome of the mania 
for political ascendency. The straits in which 
New Italy finds herself plainly verifies the saying 
of Thiers : " Qui mange du pape en meurt " — " He 
who eats pope dies of it," The Italians, whose 
sensitiveness in money matters is proverbial, 
understand the practical application of the well- 
known adage : La farina del diavolo va tutta in crusca 
— "The devil's meal all turns into bran." Even 
those who out of inborn cowardice join in the cry 
Evviva V Italia unita will tell a stranger in a 
significant and plaintive way : Si stava meglio 
quando si stava peggio — "We fared much better 
when we were worse off " ! 

A living proof of what sort of blessings the new 
kingdom is showering on the population of Italy is 
the great mass of poverty-stricken Italian emi- 
grants who daily land on our shores.^ 

* See Vaughan, chap., iv.; Vennekens, chap. i. 

» Cf . La question Romaine au point d' une financier ; OflBce of the 
Osservatore Cattolico, Milan. E. de Laveleye, in the Contemporary Review. 



80 



Salus Piiblica Suprema Lex 



c. National honor and glory! That Prc^vldence 
selected Italy for the seat of the papacy is her 
fairest fame, her greatest glory. It was the popes 
who added the most celebrated pages to Italy's 
history. The glorious traditions of the land, its 
splendid achievements in the domain of science 
and the arts, are all to this day most intimately 
connected with the names of the popes.^ 

"Those who appreciate aright the lessons of 
history and Italian traditions, and do not separate 
the love of the Church from love of country, will 
see with us that in union with the papacy lies 
precisely Italy's most fruitful source of prosperity 
and greatness." ^ 

In regard to the cry Roma, capitate d' Italia! 
Massimo d'Azegiio, one of the most skilful politi- 
cians of the Garibaldian party, has already said : 

All the lofty minds of Italy are convinced that it 
is impossible to make of Rome the capital of Italy. 
It is, moreover, no mystery to any one that the 
Italian government, beginning with the king, do 
not feel themselves at home there. They do not 
receive there the visits of sovereigns, and those 
that they do receive are surrounded with formali- 
ties which proclaim loudly that Eome is 'the 
natural See of the Roman pontiffs, the centre of 
the life of the Church, and the capital of the Cath- 
olic world ; ' and that consequently the true sov- 
ereign of the city of the apostles can be no other 

1 Leo XIII. to the Italian bishops, February 15, 1888, and letter to Cardinal 
KampoUa. 
a Leo XIII. to Cardinal Rampolla. 



Solus Puhlica Suprema Lex 



81 



than the august prisoner of the Vatican. On the 
other hand, according to the unanimous opinion of 
Italian and foreign statesmen, no city is better 
situated and better constructed to be the capital of 
the country than Florence — Fiorenza la bella.'' ' 

d. Even from an international standpoint, Italy's 
great misfortune is and will be the Roman ques- 
tion. Even without Crispi's notorious declarations, 
his angry speeches, and his frivolous article in the 
North American Review, it is as clear as daylight 
to the unbiassed mind that Italy keeps an immense 
standing army, which consumes millions upon 
millions, for no other purpose than to guard her 
spoils against the protestations of the Catholic 
world. For that very reason the Roman question 
will always be a question of the day, despite the 
tricks of diplomacy, until the sacred right of St. 
Peter's successor is restored to him. Never will 
the two hundred million children of the pope cease 
to accuse Italy of the crime committed against 
their common father, and demand back his free- 
dom. They will be louder in their claims, the 
longer the head of the Church is kept in prison. 
The world's legions of soldiery are not able to 
smother the voice of the pontiffs and deaden the 
ring of its echo in the hearts of the faithful or pre- 
vent its re-echo from their lips. 

e. National unity. Is there a unity more pre- 
cious and more strong than religious unity ? And 
would not Italy in living at peace with the pope 

» See especially Leroy-Beaulieu and de Laveleye. 



83 



Salus Puhlica Suprema Lex 



see that unity powerfully cemented which is the 
foundation of every other and the source of im- 
mense advantages, even in the social order? 

And now can there be any question about the 
lawlessness of a state of affairs which leaves to so 
many subjects of the usurper no other alternative 
than to transgress a religious duty and refuse 
obedience to the Church and the vicar of Christ, 
or to look upon the Italian kingdom in its present 
form as the enemy of the Holy See and of the 
Church ? We say Italy in its present form ; for the 
union of all under the sway of the king of Piedmont 
is not at all a necessary condition for the oneness 
of the nation. Were the popes ever opposed to a 
federative union of Italy ? Did not the united 
cities of the land in earlier times find precisely in 
the papacy their most active representative, pro- 
tector, and defender? 

Finally, would not united Italy be powerful 
enough without having Rome as its capital? 
Would it not, above all, be a more blissful union? 
Italian unity is not considered to be destroyed by 
the independence of the principality of Monaco 
and the republic of San Marino ; it would no more 
perish by the cession of a territory in which the 
Sovereign Pontiff would find the guarantee of his 
spiritual independence. 

Furthermore, Leo XIII. has never, as far as we 
know, raised his voice against such an Italian king- 
dom as would be compatible with the independence 
of the Holy See. " He knows very well," says 
Bishop Vaughan, " he has clearly indicated it, and 



Sahis Publica Suprema Lex 



83 



we all can see, that Italy would be the most happy 
and the most really united of countries if she 
would only be willing to concede a little civil prin- 
cipality to the head of the Church, who lives on its 
borders, to guarantee his independence. 

**This union in peace of the consciences of a 
Catholic peojDle would be for her not only an im- 
mense glory, but a formidable rampart." ' 

23. Would it not be a benefit, in the best sense 
of the word, to all civilized nations, if the popes 
should again be universally acknowledged and ap- 
pealed to as the arbitrators in international differ- 
ences ? 

But in order that all nations may resort in every 
instance to such an arbiter and peace-maker with 
full confidence, he must be entirely independent, a 
prince himself in his own free right. Who is 
there who does not pray for such an arbitrator ? 
All, including the enemies of the Church, must 
admit that there can be no person better qualified 
for that sacred trust than the pope. Therefore the 
salus pubUca, the public good of humanity, on this 
account also, demands his perfect liberty. 

We add: The papacy, from a purely human 
point of view, is the most beneficent of all social 
institutions. As Leo XIII. remarked in his letter 
to Cardinal Eampolla, the temporal power has ren- 
dered " to Italy and to Europe, even in the political 
and civil order, most signal services." 

The popes have been the soul and the genius of 



1 Chap. ii. 



84 



8alus Publica Suprema Lex 



the most noble aud useful enterprises which are 
the honor of the human race. Watchful sentinels, 
they have uttered the cry of alarm at the approach 
of every social danger, and have always been and 
are pre-eminently in our day the most solid barrier 
against the rising tide of socialism and of anarchy. 

Moreover, the pope is the most august represen- 
tative of what forms the basis of civilized society — ■ 
moral force. He is the incorruptible guardian and 
the indefatigable and generous defender of the prin- 
ciples whose maintenance is essential to the very 
existence of society — the principle of authority, 
paternal and civic, and the principle of justice, 
private, political, and international. He is, finally, 
the foremost initiator of all the moral good which 
operates in the world ; he is the vivifying and 
luminous centre whence go forth continually, like 
so many rays, encouragement for feebleness and 
timidity, exhortations for cowardice and apathy, 
consolation for those who struggle or who suffer, 
and inspiration for those who ask only a field for 
action. 

It is, then, out of gratitude as well as from an 
instinct of self-preservation and self-interest that 
the peoples should guarantee to the popes the 
possession of a power of which they have made 
such noble use in the service of universal human- 
ity. 

24. The Papal States and the District of Columbia, 
— The relation of the District of Columbia to the 
United States strikingly resembles the relation of 
Kome to the Catholic Church. We shall indicate 



Salus Puhlica Supreina Lex 



85 



the line of thought. The Constitution explicitly 
states that " Congress shall exercise exclusive legis- 
lative power in all cases whatever over a district " 
set apart for the government of the nation.' Now, 
the inhabitants of the District of Columbia are more 
numerous than those of certain States ; nevertheless 
they have no representatives in Congress, no right 
to vote on national issues in the district, not even 
the right to elect municipal officers. The proxi- 
mate reason of such a wise measure is the inde- 
pendence of the legislative and ruling power of the 
United States ; the ultimate reason, the welfare of 
all the States, of the whole country. Did the 
decree of 1801 ask the consent of the Washington- 
ians ? By no means. Are the people of Washing- 
ton " sovereign " ? Can they change this article 
of the Constitution, even if its population of two 
hundred thousand unanimously demanded it ? 
Not at all. What would be the answer of Con- 
gress, of all Americans, to such claims ? Simply 
this : It is an honor and a privilege for Washington 
to be the capital of the United States ; but its citi- 
zens must sacrifice some political rights exercised 
by other citizens, because SdLus puhlica suprema 
lex I — the welfare of the whole country demands it ! 

We say d pari and d fortiori : According to the 
divine constitution of the Church, Eome is the 
centre and capital of the Catholic world, the seat of 
the government of the Church. Hence the Eoman 
pontiff must have " exclusive legislative power " 

1 Constitution of the United States, art. i, § 8, 1 17. 



86 



Tlie Solution of the Question 



over Rome. Therefore Italy is honored with the 
highest privilege of divine Providence, but it has 
at the same time the sacred duty towards all Catho- 
lic nations, towards Catholics of the whole world, 
to sacrifice certain political or national rights, if 
such there be, in order to insure the complete in- 
dependence of the pope and thereby the well-being 
of the whole Catholic Church/ 



VII. What should be the Solution of the Roman 
Question 

25. We see that the Roman question exists ; that 
it has not been settled, but always left open. It 
is not only an Italian question, it is not only a 
European question, it is an international question, 
in the fullest sense of the term. Its solution is not 

1 Rev. H. A. Brann, D.D., in his learned pamphlet, The Schism of the West, 
draws the following weighty argument from the necessity of the freedom of 
papal elections: 

"We learn from this schism how dangerous it is to the peace of the 
Church to permit any secular power to have influence in the Conclave. 
The election of the pope should be absolutely free so as to forestall excuses 
for schism. Hence the place of the Conclave should be subject to no prince. 
The popes should be temporal sovereigns; their territory, be it great or 
small, absolutely inviolable; and in that territory the Conclave ought to be 
held. The Schism of the West furnishes arguments for the restoration of 
the temporal power of the pope. There are some, I know, who dream of a 
possible spiritual independence of the Papacy, without temporal power. 
But we ask when or where the popes were absolutely free, de iure and de 
facto, except when they were temporal sovereigns. They should be per- 
fectly free de iure as well as de facto, and this is only possible with the 
temporal power restored. All the facts of history are against the platonic 
dream of a spiritual independence of the papacy when it is subject to king, 
kaiser, or mob. The restoration of the temporal power is therefore a 
necessary guarantee to the freedom of the Conclave. The attempt of 
Crispi, the late prime-minister of the king of Sardinia, to get a pledge from 
the Dreibund to coerce the future Conclave to elect a pope who would 
sanction Sardinian usurpation, shows what is to be expected of any civil 
government which can claim the pope as a subject."— T/ie Schism of the 
West and the Freedom of Papal Elections. New York, Benziger Brothers, 
1892, pp. 30, 31. 



The Sohition of the Question 



87 



only useful and possible, it is necessary. It is then 
an error, from a political as well as from a religious 
point of view, to think that time can ever render 
acceptable to the Holy See the situation in which 
it is now placed by the invaders of Rome. Such 
an affirmation would be altogether inexcusable in 
the mouth of a Catholic. 

26. We do not ask when God will hear the sup- 
plications of the Catholic world for its captive 
father ; or how, under the present circumstances, 
Providence will give to the Bishop of Eome the 
temporal sovereignty over the Eternal City. His- 
tory tells us that the pope was robbed of his sov- 
ereignty one hundred and seventy times, and that 
each time it was restored to him ; our own century 
has been the witness, both in 1815 and 184:9, of 
how wonderfully God directs His Church in troub- 
lous times, and prepares new triumphs for her 
in the person of her persecuted head. But to 
appeal to divine Providence is not to demand of it 
a miracle, or to expect such a thing and in the 
mean time cross one's arms. This providence ex- 
ists, and faith tells us that it extends in a special 
manner to the beloved spouse of Christ, His 
Church, and in the Church in a most special man- 
ner to the Yicar of Christ. But we know also that 
Providence does not dispense us from doing what 
in us lies to further its designs ; that it requires the 
co-operation of men, and that it permits the most 
cruel trials to the Church precisely in order to 
stimulate and fortify our zeal in the works of faith. 

27. To whom belongs the duty of co-operating with 



88 



TJiG Solution of the Question 



the designs of divine Providence ivith regard to the 
Holy See ? This duty is incumbent, first, upon those 
who by their crime have acted directly against the 
designs of Providence, upon those who have de- 
stroyed its work, — the Italian Government. 

It is incumbent also upon those who have not 
prevented the crime, although they could and 
should have done so, or who have at least encour- 
aged the invaders of Home by their silence ; upon 
the Christian governments, especially the Catholic 
governments. 

Finally, it is incumbent upon all the Catholics of 
the world, who ought to do all in their power to 
lead the authors of the crime to make reparation 
for it. 

28. In what should this reparation consist? It 
consists in rendering to the chief of the Church 
"the civil sovereignty which in the designs of 
Providence is ordained as a means for the regular 
exercise of the apostolic power, as being the effi- 
cacious safeguard of its liberty and indepen- 
dence." 

29. To whom belongs the right of determining the 
conditions under which the re-establishment of the civil 
power should be made ? 

This right does not belong to the Italian Govern- 
ment, nor does it belong to the other powers, 
either to each of them separately or to all united ; 
it belongs solely and exclusively to the pope. The 
exercise of his divine rights is in question ; he 
alone is their depository, he alone is their guardian, 
and consequently he alone has the right of deter- 



The Solution of the Question 8^ 



mining the conditions under which they should be 
exercised. 

30. Can this solution he pacific, and hoiv ? 

Yes, it can be pacific ; moreoyer, it is desirable 
from every point of view that it should be so ; it is 
such a solution which Catholics above all demand, 
after the example of the Holy Father himself. 

The Holy Father has clearly indicated his ardent 
desire that the re-establishment of the civil sover- 
eignty should be "a work of pacification," that it 
should be brought about by "reconciliation," that 
it should " bring to an end the unfortunate dis- 
agreement between Italy, such as it is at present 
officially constituted, and the Eoman pontificate." * 

And the more to indicate their sincere desire to 
arrive at such a pacification, neither Pius IX. nor 
Leo XIII. has ever required that the Pontifical 
States should be returned to them in their original 
extent. Taking into account the circumstances of 
the case and the present condition of Italy, Leo 
XIII. has "taken care to put at the basis of this 
pacification the justice and the dignity of the Apos- 
tolic See, and to claim a state of things in which 
the Koman pontiff should be subject to none, and 
enjoy a full and not an illusory liberty." ' This 
state of things which the Holy Father demands is 
more explicitly determined by the declaration 
" that the indispensable condition for a pacification 
of Italy is the restitution of real sovereignty to the 
Boman pontiff." ' In the same document the Holy 



i Leo Xm. to Cardinal Rampolla. 



90 



Hie Solution of the Question 



Father indicates clearly that this sovereignty should 
extend in the first place over " the city of Rome, 
the natural see of the Sovereign Pontiffs, the centre 
of the life of the Church, and the capital of the 
Catholic world." 

At Rome, continues the Holy Father, " the pope 
ought to be placed in such a condition of freedom, 
that not only shall his liberty not be contravened, 
in fact, by any one whoever he may be, but that 
this shall also be abselutely evident to every 
one ; and this not owing to conditions subject 
to change and at the mercy of events, but from 
their nature stable and lasting." He warns the 
statesmen " who imagine other projects and plans " 
that " these are vain and useless attempts ;" and 
that he will never accept an adjustment " which, 
under specious pretences, leaves the pontiff in fact 
in a state of true and real dependence." Finally 
he sums up the restitution that he requires, and 
consequently the programme of pacification, in the 
following words : " Without the restoration of a 
true and effective sovereignty, we do not see any 
open way to an understanding and peace." 

31. Some non-catholic journals have spoken 
lately of the " desires, more or less avowed, of the 
court of King Humbert " for a reconciliation with 
the Holy See. These desires are, they say, based 
on the conviction that the interest of the dynasty 
counsels an agreement with the Vatican, in order 
to resist the rising flood of radicalism and social- 
ism. 

We readily believe that they are beginning to 



Tlie Sol uf ion of the Question 



91 



see at the Quirinal the truth of the words of Victor 
Emmanuel, Roma e fatale — that the revolutionary 
logic goes on from the overthrow of altars to the 
overthrow of thrones. They will undoubtedly rec- 
ognize that the future of a dynasty cannot be 
founded on the debris of the most august and the 
most legitimate of thrones. 

But will the court have the courage and the 
strength necessary to extricate itself from the ma- 
chinery of the revolution ? We would be glad to 
hope so, but unfortunately history teaches us that 
such returns are not possible except to vigorous 
and heroically-tempered souls. 

32. A liberal journal, speaking of these " desires 
of the court," adds with a world of reason that the 
Roman question is the heel of Achilles to the 
Triple Alliance, especially in view of the Catholic 
sentiments of the Austrian court and of the great 
majority of the people of that empire. It thinks 
likewise that an agreement with the Holy See 
" concluded under the auspices of a foreign power 
would hardly please the Italians." * 

It may certainly be admitted, as a great defender 
of the Holy See has said,^ that a too marked inter- 
ference of another power in the regulation of the 
Boman question might wound the sensibilities of 
Italian patriotism. But there is for the most inter- 
ested party in the case a very simple means of 
warding off this inconvenience, which is to dispense 
with all intermediaries, and take to itself the initia- 

1 L'lndependance (Belgiao), February 3, 1892. 

* Verspeyen, in his excellent Bien Public, Feb. 4, 1892. 



92 



TJie Duty of Catholics 



tive in the steps which are commended to it both 
by justice and by its own interests. Is this not the 
way that Leo XIII. himself has often suggested in 
his memorable allocutions, in proclaiming that the 
independence of the Holy See had nothing incom- 
patible with the greatness and the prosperity of 
Italy ? 

One might perhaps do well to look over the 
Gospel with King Humbert, and read again the 
parable of the prodigal son : "I will arise and go 
to my father's house " ! 

From the Quirinal to the Vatican it is not so far ! 

Let he who can and ought cause the conflict to cease, by 
restoring to the pope his proper position, and forthwith all 
these difficulties will disappear. Moreover, Italy would benefit 
greatly in all that constitutes its true glory and the happiness 
of a people, or deserves the name of civilization; for as Italy 
has been designed by Providence to be the nation nearest to 
the Papacy, so it is destined to receive more abundantly from 
the latter such salutary influence, if only it does not fight 
against or oppose them. * 

VIII. The Duty of Catholics in begard to the 
EoMAN Question 

33. " From all this it may be easily understood 
how incumbent it is on the Roman pontiffs and 
how sacred is their duty to defend and uphold the 
civil sovereignty and its lawfulness ; a duty which 
is rendered still more sacred by the obligation of 
an oath [which every pope has to take after his 
election]. It would be folly to pretend that they 
would themselves sacrifice along with the temporal 

1 Leo XIII. to Cardinal RampoUa. 



The Duty of Catholics 



93 



power that which they hold most precious and 
dear : we mean that liberty in the government of 
the Church for which their predecessors have al- 
ways so gloriously struggled. We certainly, by 
the grace of God, will not fail in our duty." * 

There are certain Catholics, fortunately not at 
all numerous, who do not love to hear such lan- 
guage from the mouth of the Yicar of Christ. 
According to them the best policy would be for the 
pope to be silent regarding the Koman question. 
The words cited from Leo XIII. contain an ener- 
getic and clear response to such ad^dce, which is 
equally devoid of authority and of Catholic sense. 
Others would wish at least to be themselves dis- 
pensed from treating the Koman question in the 
press and in public assemblies. We have given 
them above the response dictated by the Catholic 
conscience. 

The popes know better the fidelity of the true 
children of the Church and their attachment to the 
Holy See. Far from supposing silence on their 
part, they see, on the contrary, in the action of the 
Catholic peoples the firmest support of their hopes 
and of their claims. 

Hence it is that Leo XIII., after having spoken 
of his own duty, adds the following words, which 
show well the confidence of the father in his chil- 
dren : 

The whole Catholic world, very jealous of the independ- 
ence of Its head, will never rest until justice has been done to 
his most righteous demands. 



1 Ibid. 



94 



TJie Duly of Catholics 



34. Pius IX, has indicated clearly in what man- 
ner Catholics should co-operate with the views of 
Providence and second the efforts of their common 
father. These are his words : 

The Church of God in Italy is suffering violence and per- 
secution, and the Vicar of Christ has neither liberty nor the 
free and full use of his power. We therefore think it oppor- 
tune, and we greatly desire, that the bishops, who in many 
ways have constantly shown their union in the defence of the 
rights of the Church and their devotedness to this apostolic 
see, should call upon the faithful under their jurisdiction to 
make every effort, as far as the laws of each country may 
permit^ to induce their governments not only to examine 
carefully the serious condition of the head of the Catholic 
Church, but also to take such measures as may insure the re- 
moval of the obstacles which restrict his true and perfect inde- 
pendence. ^ 

35. It is by the people that great things are done 
in our day. It is they who, so to speak, trace for 
their governments the road which they are to follow. 
Now the governments represent the rights of the 
minorities as well as those of the majorities of their 
citizens, and they will not be able in this matter to 
ignore their numerous Catholic subjects. 

Says Bismarck to the Prussian Chamber of Depu- 
ties : ' 

As the representative of the government, I must place my- 
self at an independent point of view, and I must recognize that 
the Papacy is not an Italian institution, but a universal one. 
And because it is universal, it is also for German Catholics 
a German institution. 

We would add, that because it is universal it is 
also for American Catholics an American institu- 
tion, that is to say, it concerns intimately the 

^ Allocution "Luctuosis," March 12, 1877. 
« April 22, 1887. 



The Duty of Catholics 



96 



rights and tlie religious interests of the Catholics 
of America. 

Usurping Italy does not fear anything so much 
as this manifestation of Catholic sentiment. It is 
on that account that she has interfered at home 
with the petitions which were being drawn up in 
favor of the pope. It is on that account that she 
has stifled the voice of bishops and priests by a new 
and tyrannical penal code, according to which the 
mere expression of an opinion in favor of the 
temporal power is liable to punishment. It is on 
that account, finally, that by her diplomatic agents 
she has made desperate efforts to crush out the pub- 
lic and solemn protestations of the Catholic nations. 

It is only several weeks ago that the Austrian 
minister, the Count Kalnoky, indicated in the open 
Chamber that the condition of Rome was ahvays 
an open question. Hence interpellations and ex- 
planations without end in the Italian Chamber ! 

Italy will not be able to long resist such a press- 
ure from the public conscience, and must finally 
decide herself to make up her mind to pay her 
"international debt." The unanimous explosion 
of a sentiment so just, so noble, and so legitimate 
will be considered everywhere as the voice of 
Eternal Justice, whose echo resounds in the hearts 
of the believers of the Old World and of the New. 

Being, then, conscious of our strength, let us 
bring it to bear in our associations, in our assem- 
blies, and above all in our Catholic Congresses. 
Just claims do not nowadays secure a hearing in 
any other way. So only does a numerical minority 



96 



The Duty of Catholics 



gain public recognition. Those who stand aside 
and content themselves with calling upon Heaven 
to witness their protest will never prevent the 
usurping power from demanding the order of the 
day. 

Our efforts should be persevering and unanimous. 
In order to have these two qualities, they should 
before all be frank and decided. Let us not con- 
tent ourselves with declaring vaguely that indepen- 
dence is necessary to the Holy See, since there is 
question precisely of guaranteeing this indepen- 
dence by a designated method. Common action 
supposes an unequivocal platform. Such a plat- 
form is furnished us by the popes, and by the situa- 
tion itself ; it can be no other than this : The 
independence of the Holy See by the re -establish- 
ment of the temporal power of the pope. 

36. Certain journals have shown a great zeal in 
proving to Italian Catholics that it is upon them 
above all that the duty is incumbent of acting in 
behalf of the Holy See. Articles have even been 
written to urge them to take part in the political 
elections of their country, and to instal their depu- 
ties at Montecitorio in order to defend there the 
rights of the pope. 

Certainly the Italian Catholics should be in the 
front ranks of the soldiers of the Holy See. They 
have already made great efforts, and will make still 
more. Their first need, unhappily too long ne- 
glected, is a powerful organization. But in regard 
to their participation in the political elections, 
it must be said that in abstaining thus far they 



Tlie Duty of Catliolics 



97 



have only followed liitlierto tlie watchword of 
the Holy Father ; the formula m eletti ne elettori 
is simply the putting in practice of the response 
of the Holy Father, Non expedit. We have not here 
to indicate the manifold reasons for this attitude of 
the Holy See : they are more numerous and more 
serious than any one would think at the first 
glance. M. Leroy-Beaulieu, as a profound poli- 
tician, recognized it, and declared that " the situa- 
tion of a political party in Italy would be more 
difficult than in any other country." But in any 
case, the Holy Father is here also the only judge 
of the situation, and it is not becoming in a Cath- 
olic to criticise his attitude. Moreover, these 
criticisms hide too easily a specious excuse for 
those who would desire to throw upon the Italian 
Catholics alone the accomplishment of a duty which 
is incumbent upon us as well as upon them : for 
the duty of Catholics is as international as the 
Eoman question itself. 

37. The more active and vigorous international 
action is in this case, the greater will be its weight, 
the more powerful its efficacy, and the more speedy 
its success. Again, the more outspoken Catholics 
are in a country where they enjoy greater liberty 
the greater will be their influence on public opinion. 
It is this conviction that the German-American 
Catholics at the congress of Buffalo (September, 
1891), have well expressed in their resolutions, so 
clear and so energetic, on the subject of the tem- 
poral power. 

Their open and decided language has also been 



98 



The Duty of Catliolics 



justly appreciated and londlj approved by the 
Catholic organs of the highest standing in the Old 
World. 

In the inspiring language of Father Hecker : 
"We have the right, as well as the duty, as one of 
the members of the Catholic Church, to voice what 
we know to be the unanimous conviction of our 
fellow-Catholics on this continent, who are no idle 
spectators of passing events at Kome, who do not 
listen with deaf ears to one whom they delight to 
call by the endearing name of father; and when 
the government of the king of Italy makes, or 
allows others to make, his position in the Eternal 
City * intolerable,' then we have the common right 
and the common duty to raise our voice, and in 
the unmistakable tones of sincerity to warn him — 
beware r ' 

The Catholic people of the United States, what- 
ever be their mother- tongue, are profoundly at- 
tached to the Holy See : let us go to them, let us 
give them an opportunity of manifesting their at- 
tachment, let us speak to them clearly and warmly 
of the unworthy situation in which the chief of the 
Church is placed, and they will be happy to give 
us resplendent proofs of their filial sentiments 
towards the common Father of the Faithful. This 
is abundantly evidenced by the grand mass-meet- 
ing of workingmen which was held a few days ago 
under the auspices of the Most Hev. Archbishop 
Corrigan in the city of New York. We have just 
read with real pleasure and admiration the masterly 

» Catholic World, April, 1882. 



The Duty of Catholics 99 

discourse of one of our most distinguished Catholic 
laymen, J udge Dunne, and the excellent resolutions 
enthusiastically adopted in that memorable assem- 
bly. 

Let us aid, in the mean time, the captive Peter 
alike with our charity and with our prayers, and 
take heed that we may in no way incur the reproach 
of the Holy Spirit : " Of what an evil fame is he 
that forsaketh his father." Let us follow the ex- 
ample which he gives us. " We place our trust in 
God," said Leo XIII. in an address, "and are 
determined to contend with all our might for the 
freedom of the Church and its head. . . . We are, 
moreover, not alone in this conflict." 

No, Holy Father, you are not alone in this con- 
flict ! Your devoted bishops and priests, all your 
faithful children, pray and protest with you ! Our 
trust, like yours, is in the Lord, who above all else 
loves the freedom of His Church ! The day will 
come, the longed-for day of deliverance ! The suc- 
cessor of the prince of the apostles will again 
ascend the venerable throne which centuries have 
erected for the papacy, to shed new lustre upon the 
Church, to spread over all the world the beneficent 
influence of the apostolic word, to be free again to 
bestow his blessing, without let or hindrance, upon 
the Eternal City and the entire world — JJrbi et 
OrUl 



APPENDIX 



APPENDIX 



TWENTY THESES ON THE ROMAN QUESTION 
L 

The head of the Catholic Church, as the successor 
of St. Peter, has a right, which bj reason of his 
sublime office and the explicit will of Jesus Christ 
is divine and inalienable, to direct and govern the 
whole Church, freely and independently of every 
earthly power. 

n. 

Only the bishop of Eome is or has ever been 
the successor of St. Peter in the primacy. It is 
theologically certain that this prerogative of the 
Roman Church is immutable, and can never be 
transferred to any other episcopal see. 

III. 

To insure the permanent liberty and independ- 
ence of the head of the Church, divine Providence 
has so shaped events that after the age of persecu- 

103 



104 Twenty Theses on the Roman Question 

tion the popes became by the most legitimate 
means, without offence or opposition, the masters 
of Rome even in a political sense, and have re- 
mained such until our own day. 

IV. 

The violent measures of which the Holy See 
became the victim in the year 1870, could not 
change these designs of divine Providence. On the 
contrary, the events of the last twenty years have 
only served to prove more clearly that the tem- 
poral power is an indispensable condition for the 
normal government of the Church, and a necessary 
guarantee of the complete freedom and indepen- 
dence of the pope. 

V. 

The political independence of the popes has 
always been assailed by the enemies of the Church 
and the destruction of the temporal power in our, 
day was instigated by the anti-christian and anti- 
religious sects, and effected by their instrumentality 
with the open and avowed purpose of shattering 
and destroying the spiritual power of the pope and 
of the Church. 

. YT. 

The Roman question is therefore a religious and 
not a merely political question. 



Twenty Theses on the Roman Question 



105 



YII. 

The spoliation of the Holy See by the Italian 
Government in 1870 was consequently not only a 
flagrant violation of the principles of natural and 
public right, a breech of the most solemn treaties, 
and an infraction of the very primary provisions of 
international law, but also a crime done against the 
Church of God herself, her property and her free- 
dom, and hence a true sacrilege. 

vin. 

Although the Christian powers permitted the 
spoliation of the papal states without the solemn 
protest which they should have made, they reminded 
"Victor Emmanuel's government immediately after 
the event of its duty to make the independence of 
the head of the Church secure, and the Italian 
Government has thus far tried in vain to obtain 
from them an explicit recognition or approval of 
the occupation of Rome. 

IX. 

The circumstances under which the law of guar- 
antees was framed, and the manner in which it is 
understood and executed by the Italian Government, 
prove clearly and unmistakably that it was a deceit 
practised upon the Catholic people concerning the 
real intention of the revolution, and while appar- 



106 Twenty Theses on the Roman Question 

ently acknowledging the pope's dignity, it was 
really a means of degrading it. It is, in fact, a de- 
fiance of divine Providence and an insult to the 
Catholics of the whole world. 

X. 

This law and the general attitude of the Italian 
Government towards the Holy See, is a breach of 
the pledge which it gave to the Christian powers 
both before and after the taking of Eome, to guar- 
antee full freedom to the pope and to settle the 
Bomau question " with the Catholic world." 

XL 

By these and similar declarations the Italian 
Government itself has acknowledged the interna- 
tional character of the Roman question, and thus 
has given the lie to Crispi's words that " the ques- 
tion is a purely Italian one." 

XII. 

The Roman question is in reality an international 
question, because (a) it is concerned with the most 
vital interests of Catholics of all nations and of all 
tongues, and (h) the pope is the highest representa- 
tive of that moral power which is the basis of a civ- 
ilized society, and which alone can effectively guard 
it against the anarchical designs of socialism in its 
many forms. 



Twenty Theses on tlie Roman Question 107 



XIII. 

The Christian powers cannot leave the Roman 
question to be solved by the Italian Government as 
it sees fit ; for they have to protect the religions 
interests of their Catholic subjects, which are in- 
timately connected with the liberty and indepen- 
dence of the Papacy. 

xiy. 

A peaceful solution of this question is most de- 
sirable. It can be attained either by the voluntary 
action of the Italian Government or by the diplo- 
matic influence of the other powers. 

XV. 

Far from being detrimental to the true interests 
of Italy, such settlement would make the political 
independence of the country secure, promote its 
credit and influence abroad, bestow upon its people 
the blessing of true unity at home, elevate its re- 
ligious and moral power, increase the material and 
financial prosperity of the land, and correspond 
to the urgent desire of an overwhelming majority 
of the Italian people. 

XYI. 

The principle that even violent changes in the 
political conditions of a people can be legitimated 



108 Twenty Theses on the Roman Question 

by circumstances cannot be applied to the Boman 
problem, as it is not a question of dynastic claims or 
the temporal interests of a particular nation, but 
rather of the inalienable rights of the head of the 
Church, the spiritual interests of Catholics through- 
out the world, and indeed the most important social 
interests of all nations. 

XVIL 

As the pope has again and again solemnly de- 
clared his love for peace and expressed his desire 
for a settlement which would not compromise his 
dignity, and the Italian government, far from taking 
any steps to meet this wish, has more than once 
forcibly suppressed the endeavors of its Catholic 
subjects to that end, the latter alone is answerable 
not only for bringing about the strained condition 
of affairs, but also for its continuance. 

XVIII. 

The only final solution of the Eoman question 
must assure to the Holy See a true territorial sov- 
ereignty as a guarantee of its real and manifest 
independence ; and the acceptance of this principle 
alone can furnish the basis of future negotiations. 

XIX. 

It belongs to the pope alone to determine the 
details of the adjustment which, in view of the ex- 
isting situation in Italy and the present condition 



Tiuenty Theses 07i the Roman Question 109 

of society at large, is necessary for the attainment 
of that sovereignty. 

XX. 

The Catholics of the whole world are in honor 
bound to use every endeavor for the re-establish- 
ment of the temporal sovereignty of the head of 
the Church. Systematic silence is not only dis- 
obedience, but cowardice. 



PRINTED BY BKNZIGER BROTHERS, NEW YORK. 



American Catholics 



AND THE 



ROMAN QUESTION 



BY 

MoNsiGNOR JOSEPH SCHROEDEK,D.D:,Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR OP DOGMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY 
OF AMFRICA 



Qu»m nialae famae est, qui derelinquit patrem. 

—Eeclus. in. 18, 

The whole Catholic woiM, very jealous- of the independ* 
ence of its head, will never rest until justice has been 
done to his most rigtiteoua demands. (Leo XIII., Letter 
to Cardinal Raiiipolla, June 15, 1387.) 



New York, Cincinnati, Chicago 

BENZIGER BROTHERS 

Printers to tJie Hohj Apostolic See 
1892 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent; Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologles 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 11 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



r5 1 n 



